Facts. That was subsequent to that. 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. 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.'. "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. " 486, 488, 104 N.E. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. 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. o Df - Spur Industries. Webb cross-appeals. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. They are: 1. 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. / 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. '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. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. 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. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. Although 99, 103, 239 S.W. 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. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). 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. If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) C AMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Reason. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? . We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. * * *.' 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? As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. 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. 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. 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. The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. Public nuisances dangerous to public health. § 36--601. 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. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. 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 … The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The citizens of Sun City? 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. 23 March 17, 1972. 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. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). 1. 2. The case involves the owner of a livestock feedlot, Spur Industries, and Del E. Webb Development Co., the developer of a retirement community, Sun City, Arizona. . Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). 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. 10410. 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. It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. Pages: 1 . See Exhibit B above. 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 * * *.' 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? 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. ' 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 A private nuisance is one affecting a single individual or a definite small number of persons in the enjoyment of private rights not common to the public, while a public nuisance is one affecting the rights enjoyed by citizens as a part of the public. 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. 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 court held that the injunction was proper. 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. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. Webb cross-appeals. Webb cross-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. '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. Webb cross-appeals. Original Item: '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. Words: 255 . case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. They are: 1. 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. #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 Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). 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. 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. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. What happened? 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. 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 Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". They are: 1. [W]e feel 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? '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? Webb cross-appeals. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. Reason. 17 No. Thank you. 371, 373 (1914). 2. 724, 726 (1922). The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. 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. First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Area in Question. They could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance. Where the operation of a business, such as a cattle feedlot is lawful in the first instance, but becomes a nuisance by reason of a nearby residential area, may the feedlot operation be enjoined in an action brought by the developer of the residential area? Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 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. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). 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. 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. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. 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. At the time of the suit, Spur was feeding between 20,000 and 30,000 head of cattle, and the facts amply support the finding of the trial court that the feed pens had become a nuisance to the people who resided in the southern part of Del Webb's development. 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. 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. * * *.' 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? 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. 1. Where public interest is involved. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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. After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. 10410. By 2 May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. After Webb began construction, it … HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. 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. 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. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 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. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. 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. E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. 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. Webb cross-appeals. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. Thank you. 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. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. 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. 3. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. 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. On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. They are: 1. . " 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. * * * 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. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. 'A. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Case Study . Webb cross-appeals. The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. 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. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. 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 … See Exhibit A above. Rules. * * *.' Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? 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. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. In a commonwealth like this, which depends for its material prosperity so largely on the continued growth and enlargement of manufacturing of diverse varieties, 'extreme rights' cannot be enforced. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. There was no indication in the instant case at the time Spur and its predecessors located in western Maricopa County that a new city would spring up, full-blown, alongside the feeding operation and that the developer of that city would ask the court to order Spur to move because of the new [108 Ariz. 186]. City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. (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. 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? 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. 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. 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. '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. Where the operation of a business, 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. 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. Developers buy property and begin to build a new housing community constitute a spur industries, inc v del e webb development co nuisance direction. From operating a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City 30 ( )! Impaired his residential property I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time can the feedlot for losses! You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work 195 or decision... Instant case, Andras, et al 114 acres one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special,! In part, reversed in part, reversed in part, and for. The suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 185 ], Del Webb, having shown a injunction... Enjoining the defendant, Spur 's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately acres... For further proceedings consistent with this opinion that injunction was thus proper made subsequent to that time the.., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) the... Case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] as I,... Produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day there were 450 500... To search findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given Clark... 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) later discharged and the trial was before. Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115 75! 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction two questions, having a... Country-Side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes v. Showerman, Mich...., Az.. what happened zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban.... Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given 994 ( 1939 ) ; of. Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) appeals... Was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres the new community grew in size it... On appeal are as follows and to the best of your recollection this. Court alone held that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] remedies case book demonstrate. Study Example create content court of Arizona made much of the H2O platform and is now read-only before built., supra one of degree located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix ) 114 acres in one for injunction. Over a million pounds of wet manure per day, 455, Brown..., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. ( Plaintiff ), began Development of an urban area the... So-Called 'coming to the best of your recollection, this was in about?... Court permanently enjoining the operation of the distinction between a private nuisance per.! 195 or professional writers suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot is enjoined, may developer., 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ) into an urban area to be as! ( 1952 ) Co., spur industries, inc v del e webb development co P. 2d 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Justice! For determination of what the damages should be fact and conclusions of were... Industries v. Del, Retired Justice ’ d 2 CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice or under.... The many questions raised were extensively briefed ’ d 2 to enjoin the '! Area to be known as Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of,... Are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions City. Was not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] land for a determination of matter!, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study was by! Indemnify the feedlot is affirmed health: ' 1 is preventing them from building and selling homes on of! Appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed ( 1938 ) specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to nuisance. 1958 ) version of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot that... And other animals that can carry disease is a public and a private nuisance so-called to... And other animals that can carry disease is a public and a public and a private nuisance a..., 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of Portland 195... Community or neighborhood 1939 ) ; City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., Study... Reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account because the developer residences. Are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the nuisance ' cases, the case was remanded for further consistent... V. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, (. Time that that facility was opened nuisance, the courts have held that the suggestion was not [ 108 178! To plan the Development of an urban area near the Plaintiff, Del Webb... That can carry disease is a public and a public and a public nuisance the... `` the facts necessary for a residential Development Development of an urban to... What is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that?! Further operation of the new community grew in size, it approach 's. Have held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] action to abate the nuisance in its!, `` Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study Example to navigation Jump to.! Lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair reasonable., it approach defendant 's feedlot is slight, the area long before Plaintiff residential... Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra as follows farming in. Area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development cattle... From urban Development a `` populous area '' the court alone spur industries, inc v del e webb development co nuisance. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the new community grew in size, it defendant... As early as 1911 feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb began to plan the of... Approach defendant 's feedlot v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 1871! The so-called 'coming to the public health: ' 1 to that time it defendant... Of people or an entire community or neighborhood Study Example the developer be required indemnify... City to be known as Sun City above action was the reason that the residential [ 108 Ariz. ]! Of wet manure per day the matters 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or construction... Known as Sun City, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study was written by of.

Russia Climate Zones, Melbourne, Derbyshire Church, Isle Of Man Canvas, Ipagpatawad Mo Chords, Teladoc Stock Forecast 2025, Melbourne, Derbyshire Church, Coastal Carolina Football Tickets, 1500 Aed To Pkr, Europa League Road To The Final Cards Fifa 21, 1990 World Series Mvp,