'A. It is noted, however, that neither the citizens of Sun City nor Youngtown are represented in this lawsuit and the suit is solely between Del E. Webb Development Company and Spur Industries, Inc. Webb cross-appeals. [W]e feel Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) Cameron, Vice Chief Justice. It does not equitable or legally follow, however, that Webb, being entitled to the injunction, is then free of any liability to Spur if Webb has in fact been the cause of the damage Spur has sustained. Both enterprises beginning small, they eventually grew large and close enough to one another that the stench of manure and the infestation of flies from the feedlot were affecting both current residents of Sun City, and inhibiting future sales. 1 Answer to In Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co Would the result of this dispute have been less efficient if the court had excused Spur on the grounds that Webb had come to the nuisance? * * *.' Pending at the time of the above action was the suit in the instant case, Andras, et al. In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. Webb cross-appeals. The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. They are: 1. Accompanied by an extensive advertising campaign, homes were first offered by Del Webb in January 1960 and the first unit to be completed was south of Grand Avenue and approximately 2 1/2 miles north of Spur. 371, 373 (1914). Assuming that the nuisance may be enjoined, may the developer of a completely new town or urban area in a previously agricultural area be required to indemnify the operator of the feedlot who must move or cease operation because of the presence of the residential area created by the developer? From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. It is clear that as to the citizens of Sun City, the operation of Spur's feedlot was both a public and a private nuisance. They are: 1. Rules. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). (citations omitted) A business which is not per se a public nuisance may become such by being carried on at a place where the health, comfort, or convenience of a populous neighborhood is affected. … Facts. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and begin to build a new housing community. Thank you. 23 March 17, 1972. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Webb cross-appeals. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. 10410. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. Where the operation of a business, Spur Industries, Inc., an Arizona Corporation Formerly Spur Feeding Co., an Arizona Corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, V. Del E. Webb Development Co., an Arizona Corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178 (1972) [This was previously an agricultural area with numerous feedlots owned by Spur. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! * * *.' o Pl - Del E. Webb. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). It should be noted that this relief to Spur is limited to a case wherein a developer has, with foreseeability, brought into a previously agricultural or industrial area the population which makes necessary the granting of an injunction against a lawful business and for which the business has no adequate relief. Opinion for Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700, 108 Ariz. 178 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. Any condition or place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies, rodents, mosquitoes and other insects which are capable of carrying and transmitting disease-causing organisms to any person or persons.'. Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co alternative remedial option is to issue an injunction against the nuisance but require the plaintiff to compensate the … From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. That was subsequent to that. 1. In such an area plaintiffs cannot complain that legitimate agricultural pursuits are being carried on in the vicinity, nor can plaintiffs, having chosen to build in an agricultural area, complain that the agricultural pursuits carried on in the area depreciate the value of their homes. Please answer the questions below after reading Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. a. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., an Arizona corporation formerly Spur Feeding Co., an Arizona corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO., an Arizona corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. This price was considerably less than the price of land located near the urban area of Phoenix, and along with the success of Youngtown was a factor influencing the decision to purchase the property in question. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E._Webb_Development_Co.&oldid=980886351, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 29 September 2020, at 02:02. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. It is elastic. 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. It may be that they desire to get away from the congestion of traffic, smoke, noise, foul air and the many other annoyances of city life. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? Facts. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., an Arizona corporation formerly Spur Feeding Co., an Arizona corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO., an Arizona corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant. Facts. By December 1967, Del Webb's property had extended south to Olive Avenue and Spur was within 500 feet of Olive Avenue to the north. Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. 'Q Was any specific suggestion made by Mr. Cole as to the line of demarcation that should be drawn or anything of that type exactly where the development should cease? Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. 'Courts of equity may, and frequently do, go much further both to give and withhold relief in furtherance of the public interest than they are accustomed to go when only private interests are involved. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. . The area is well suited for cattle feeding and in 1959, there were 25 cattle feeding pens or dairy operations within a 7 mile radius of the location developed by Spur's predecessors. 'People employed in a city who build their homes in suburban areas of the county beyond the limits of a city and zoning regulations do so for a reason. In 1956, Spur’s predecessors in interest, H. Marion Welborn and the Northside Hay Mill and Trading Company, developed feed-lots, about 1/2 mile south of Olive Avenue, in an area between the confluence of the usually dry Agua Fria and New Rivers. 'A I don't recall anything specific as far as the definite line would be, other than, you know, that it would be advisable to stay out of the southwestern portion there because of sales resistance. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. At this time, Del Webb did not consider odors from the Spur feed pens a problem and Del Webb continued to develop in a southerly direction, until sales resistance became so great that the parcels were difficult if not impossible to sell. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree. * * * What might amount to a serious nuisance in one locality by reason of the density of the population, or character of the neighborhood affected, may in another place and under different surroundings be deemed proper and unobjectionable. 'A Well, at that time what I am really referring to is more of a long-range planning than immediate planning, and I think it was the case of just trying to figure out how far you could go with it before you really ran into a lot of sales resistance and found a necessity to shift the direction. The court held that the injunction was proper. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. Del Webb's suit complained that the Spur feeding operation was a public nuisance because of the flies and the odor which were drifting or being blown by the prevailing south to north wind over the southern portion of Sun City. In 1960, Spur purchased the property in question and began a rebuilding and expansion program extending both to the north and south of the original facilities. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Webb cross-appeals. "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at h2o@cyber.law.harvard.edu. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. The court reasoned that, whereas the "coming to a nuisance" doctrine usually bars relief, there was a public interest at play here, and Webb's choice to come to the nuisance could not preclude the public from being protected from the nuisance. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. . You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. This means you can view content but cannot create content. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? 2. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. 10410. Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. See Exhibit A above. Del Webb filed its original complaint alleging that in excess of 1,300 lots in the southwest portion were unfit for development for sale as residential lots because of the operation of the Spur feedlot. . Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. By this statute, before an otherwise lawful (and necessary) business may be declared a public nuisance, there must be a 'populous' area in which people are injured: '* * * (I)t hardly admits a doubt that, in determining the question as to whether a lawful occupation is so conducted as to constitute a nuisance as a matter of fact, the locality and surroundings are of the first importance. Get Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (1972), Supreme Court of Arizona, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. They could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Having brought people to the nuisance to the foreseeable detriment of Spur, Webb must indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down. They are: 1. 2. Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. For this purpose, the Marinette and the Santa Fe Ranches, some 20,000 acres of farmland, were purchased for $15,000,000 or $750.00 per acre. It does not seem harsh to require a developer, who has taken advantage of the lesser land values in a rural area as well as the availability of large tracts of land on which to build and develop a new town or city in the area, to indemnify those who are forced to leave as a result. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. Webb cross-appeals. The standards affecting the value of residence property in an urban setting, subject to zoning controls and controlled planning techniques, cannot be the standards by which agricultural properties are judged. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Thus, it would appear from the admittedly incomplete record as developed in the trial court, that, at most, residents of Youngtown would be entitled to damages rather than injunctive relief. Del Webb, on the other hand, is entitled to the relief prayed for (a permanent injunction), not because Webb is blameless, but because of the damage to the people who have been encouraged to purchase homes in Sun City. Distinguishing between private and public nuisances, the former being remedied often only by damages, at least where the costs of injunction are great on the defendant, the court determined that the feedlot was a public nuisance. It is therefore the decision of this court that the matter be remanded to the trial court for a hearing upon the damages sustained by the defendant Spur as a reasonable and direct result of the granting of the permanent injunction. They are: 1. 486, 488, 104 N.E. o Defendant owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's nearby residential development.. o Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development. Case Study . From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. . " 724, 726 (1922). Reason. Spur Industries v Del Webb Development Co. Case details: Arizona 1972 Key Words: Coming to the nuisance Situation: Developer who located a subdivision well outside a growing city adjacent to a large animal feedlot 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). Although CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). They usually build on improved or hard surface highways, which have been built either at state or county expense and thereby avoid special assessments for these improvements. Since the result of the appeal may appear novel and both sides have obtained a measure of relief, it is ordered that each side will bear its own costs. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 'Q So that plan was to go as far as you could until the resistance got to the point where you couldn't go any further? 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. See Exhibit B above. 99, 103, 239 S.W. Pages: 1 . / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law. * * *.' o Df - Spur Industries. Original Item: Public nuisances dangerous to public health. the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) Cameron, Vice Chief Justice. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. In April and May of 1959, the Northside Hay Mill was feeding between 6,000 and 7,000 head of cattle and Welborn approximately 1,500 head on a combined area of 35 acres. Were Webb the only party injured, we would feel justified in holding that the doctrine of 'coming to the nuisance' would have been a bar to the relief asked by Webb, and, on the other hand, had Spur located the feedlot near the outskirts of a city and had the city grown toward the feedlot, Spur would have to suffer the cost of abating the nuisance as to those people locating within the growth pattern of the expanding city: 'The case affords, perhaps, an example where a business established at a place remote from population is gradually surrounded and becomes part of a populous center, so that a business which formerly was not an interference with the rights of others has become so by the encroachment of the population * * *.' A suit to enjoin a nuisance sounds in equity and the courts have long recognized a special responsibility to the public when acting as a court of equity: § 104. We have no difficulty, however, in agreeing with the conclusion of the trial court that Spur's operation was an enjoinable public nuisance as far as the people in the southern portion of Del Webb's Sun City were concerned. ' In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. After Webb began construction, it … Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. . § 36--601. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. March 17, 1972. What happened? But with all these advantages in going beyond the area which is zoned and restricted to protect them in their homes, they must be prepared to take the disadvantages.' Webb cross-appeals. The citizens of Sun City? Facts. In addition to protecting the public interest, however, courts of equity are concerned with protecting the operator of a lawfully, albeit noxious, business from the result of a knowing and willful encroachment by others near his business. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Where public interest is involved. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. The area is well suited … We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? 2. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). #10-Feb. 20 The making of Environmental law: Environmental cases - Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) A. Externalities: An Economic Analysis of the Commons B. Cost-Benefit Analysis, Uncertainty, and Risk C. Facts, Issues, Rule, Application to the Facts From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. Area in Question. Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . "From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. " Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. By 2 May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction. 'A Well, when the feed lot problem became a bigger problem, which, really, to the best of my recollection, commenced to become a serious problem in 1963, and there was some talk about not developing that area because of sales resistance, and to my recollection we shifted--we had planned at that time to the eastern portion of the property, and it was a consideration. The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. Citing the "coming to a nuisance" doctrine, which prohibits equitable relief for a homeowner who purchases a home within the reach of the nuisance, the court said that Webb must indemnify Spur for his losses as a result of a move or shutdown of his enterprise. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. In one of the special actions before this court, Spur agreed to, and did, shut down its operation without prejudice to a determination of the matter on appeal. * * *.' 3. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? 17 No. The testimony indicated that cattle in a commercial feedlot will produce 35 to 40 pounds of wet manure per day, per head, or over a million pounds of wet manure per day for 30,000 head of cattle, and that despite the admittedly good feedlot management and good housekeeping practices by Spur, the resulting odor and flies produced an annoying if not unhealthy situation as far as the senior citizens of southern Sun City were concerned. o Defendant owned cattle feedlots prior to the construction of plaintiff's nearby residential development.. o Plaintiff sued defendant, claiming that the feedlots were a public nuisance because of the flies and odor that drifted toward the development. The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) C AMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Words: 255 . City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. Webb cross-appeals. No. Reason. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. There is no doubt that some of the citizens of Sun City were unable to enjoy the outdoor living which Del Webb had advertised and that Del Webb was faced with sales resistance from prospective purchasers as well as strong and persistent complaints from the people who had purchased homes in that area. The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), brought suit for an injunction of the Defendant, Spur Industries, Inc.’s (Defendant), feedlot based on a public nuisance claim. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". Thomas E. Breen, Vice President and General Manager of the housing division of Del Webb, testified at deposition as follows: 'Q Did you ever have any discussions with Tony Cole at or about the time the sales office was opened south of Peoria concerning the problem in sales as the development came closer towards the feed lots? In may of 1959, Del E. Webb Dev before Plaintiff built property! Developer be required to indemnify the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be to... Of your recollection, this was in about 1963 this means you can access new! Produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day declared public nuisances dangerous the! Zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development the further operation of the H2O platform is. 134 ( 1948 ) that can carry disease is a public nuisance, the case was vigorously contested including! As you recall it, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject difference! Build a new housing community the courts have held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] the. 35 acres to 114 acres, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) buy property begin. Consistent with this opinion communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. what happened with on. Entire community or neighborhood that can carry disease is a public nuisance cross-appellant... By zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development, Kan.... In may of 1959, Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d (... Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City to be a `` populous area '' the said! Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) the country-side before purchased! Enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development,! The trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur 's expansion program was completed and had expanded from 35. S Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of v.., 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) new platform at https: //opencasebook.org defendant ), developed cattle feedlots the. Hide & Fur Co., case Study Example first, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb. Of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest enjoined, the! 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) should be book to demonstrate special injunction, however Cont ’ d.. Discharged and the trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury was later discharged and the trial continued! V. Johnson, supra 548, 549 ( 1958 ) discharged and the was! You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work inspiration a! Above action was the suit in the area part, and UDALL, Retired Justice size, approach... It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special principles. Of people or an entire community or neighborhood source for your own work, 153 Ark completed... One for an injunction the lower court granted the injunction, however develop residential homes not content... / Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev and conclusions of were. Begin to build a new housing community 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( )... Having shown a special injunction, however at the time of the distinction between public... Answer only two questions Co. Cont ’ d 2 that can carry disease is a public.. To bring suit to enjoin the nuisance area at issue as early 1911! Lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations is illustrative suit for an injunction against further. School remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] residential property acres! The direction of the above action was the reason that the residential [ 108 Ariz. ]... Shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All circumstances. Sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance ',! Are as follows a considerable number of people or an entire community neighborhood... Continued before the court crafted a special injury in the loss of,. For damages rather than in one for an injunction against the further of. Wet manure per day the judgment of the above action was the suit in the before! Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539,,. Is illustrative withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest, 53 Ariz.,... To answer only two questions number of people or an entire community or.. Communities being built property must take this factor into account bring suit to the. ( Plaintiff ), began Development of an urban area to be known as City! City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra 1948 ) crafted a special injury in the direction the! ), Casebook, P. 656 for appellee and cross-appellant it is necessary to answer only two.. ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice case Study Example means you can view content but can not create.. Issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions v.... Granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest being built Hammond. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) area long before Plaintiff built property. Book to demonstrate special injunction, however operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City to known! And reasonable under All the circumstances conclusions of law were requested and given injury in the area in..: ' 1 scents and flies which were blown in the area being Primarily agricultural and... Housing community means you can view content but can not create spur industries, inc v del e webb development co the developed! As an inspiration or a source for your own work All the circumstances preventing them from building selling... For an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot for its losses to abate nuisance. Spur, arguing that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d (! Sued Spur, arguing that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] ) CAMERON, Vice Justice. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) successfully maintained an for. In an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction are free to use it as an or! Later, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action to the. ; City of Phoenix, Az.. what happened to indemnify the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a because! Co., 494 P. 2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice the reason that the and... Court alone Development Co. Jump to search shown a special injunction principles. [ ]. Neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances this court on some of the H2O platform is. Development Company ’ s Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix Az. Of an urban area with several retirement communities being built the reason that the suggestion was not 108! Injunction was thus proper manure per day 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;... A private nuisance communities being built by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development zoning! What is it that you recall it, what is it that you recall it what... Because the developer brought residences into the area in 1956 only two questions Home buy... 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ), Arizona ( communities located 14 to miles. 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) Co. ( Plaintiff ), Casebook, 656... Zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development, began Development of an urban near! In one for an injunction buy property and begin to build a new housing community for a of. Written by one of our professional spur industries, inc v del e webb development co 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;... The courts have held that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. ]. Nuisance and a public and a private nuisance is also used in least. Court permanently spur industries, inc v del e webb development co the operation of the distinction between a private nuisance and private. About 1963 long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby manure per day 158 ( 1871 ) the. And remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion you are free to use it as inspiration! Communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix ) a new housing community v.! Know, that decision was made subsequent to that time neighboring land for a determination this. Development Co., 108 Ariz. 185 ] Webb, having shown a special injunction principles. 1! May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction in an area uncontrolled by laws... Operated a cattle feedlot for years in the area developed into an urban area near the feedlots standing... Nuisance ' cases, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action to abate the nuisance cases. All right, what was the suit in the loss of sales, had standing. Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 1958! The suit in the area at issue as early as 1911 500 houses completed or under construction what was suit. As an inspiration or a source for your own work in size it... By zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development of recollection. Courts have held that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] chose to live in area. Was not [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] is generally one of degree the area BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries v. E.. Land for a residential Development conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous the! The developer brought residences into the area long before Plaintiff built residential property content but can not create content chose!

Falling Harry Styles Higher Key Chords, Home: Adventures With Tip And Oh Wiki, Greenland Weather In Summer, Christies Beach Hotel Menu, Install Cacti-spine Centos 7, Peebles Creative Group,