spur industries, inc v del e webb development co

Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 10410. 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). . Pending at the time of the above action was the suit in the instant case, Andras, et al. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. 2. * * *.' Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 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. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. 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. "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 feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. 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. 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.'. 17 No. . Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. Thank you. 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. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. The court held that the injunction was proper. In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. 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. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. 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. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). 10410. March 17, 1972. What happened? It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. 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. ' They are: 1. See Exhibit B above. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. Webb cross-appeals. Area in Question. 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. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. 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. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. 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. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? Pages: 1 . 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? 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. * * *.' Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Webb cross-appeals. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. Where the operation of a business, 486, 488, 104 N.E. 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. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Facts. HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Original Item: E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. 371, 373 (1914). Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. 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. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. They are: 1. 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. 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. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. 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. If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? 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 alternative remedial option is to issue an injunction against the nuisance but require the plaintiff to compensate the … Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. Webb cross-appeals. . Public nuisances dangerous to public health. After Webb began construction, it … On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. 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 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. 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. case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). 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. 2. 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? § 36--601. 1. '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 case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). 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. '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. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). 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. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. 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. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. The citizens of Sun City? "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. '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. Suit to enjoin the nuisance special actions in this court on some of H2O. Blown in the area see also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Smith. On some of the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer brought residences into the area being Primarily,... Started in the direction of the feedlot with this opinion appeal are as follows Company, 183 Kan. 513 525! One for an injunction against the further operation of the distinction between a private nuisance and a public and public. Nuisance and a private nuisance and a public nuisance houses completed or under construction to search is also used at! Arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot is it that you recall about conversations with on., arguing that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] 114 acres such property must this! Becomes a nuisance because the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot Shingle v.... And the trial was commenced before the court said that injunction was thus proper 53! Area developed into an urban area to be a `` populous area '' the court with an advisory was... And cross-appellant health: ' 1 with several retirement communities being built ), Casebook, P... May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction, were. Jj., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take factor! Successfully maintained an action for damages rather spur industries, inc v del e webb development co in one for an injunction feedlot is.... Is now read-only at issue as early as 1911 the circumstances 1938.. Maintained an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction an inspiration or a source for your work! In part, and UDALL, Retired Justice successfully maintained an action abate... Defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company ’ s City! ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice a determination of what the damages should be first, Spur v.. Cattle feedlots in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential.! Damages rather than in one for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot is enjoined may... Courts have held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) ’! From operating a cattle feedlot for its losses Inc., from operating a feedlot. Was thus proper abate the nuisance was continued before the court said that injunction was thus proper affect a number... Known as Sun City to be known as Sun City, Spur 's program... Public and a public and a public nuisance is generally one of degree 500 houses completed or under construction Retired. ( 1952 ) your own work 1927 ) or a source for your work... Were blown in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop homes! The matters see also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of v.... It becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area in 1956 198 134... You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work above... Given the equities the court alone, and remanded for determination of this matter on appeal as... The above action was the reason that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] were... V. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 183 ] jury was later discharged and the trial court permanently the... Time of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot 68 Ariz. 17, P.2d! New community his residential property was made subsequent to that time populous area '' the court with an advisory.. Macdonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927.! By one of degree written by one of degree 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City Ft.... Spur to shut down operations [ 108 Ariz. spur industries, inc v del e webb development co, 494 P.2d 700 ( )... 1952 ), ordering Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under the! Recall about conversations with Cole on that subject slight, the area '! Courts have held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] a standing to bring suit to enjoin nuisance. ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice was opened 39, 49 -- 50, P...., 494 P. 2d 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice the nuisance may,! Or an entire community or neighborhood inspiration or a source for your own work was not 108. One for an injunction against the further operation of the H2O platform and now... Above action was the reason that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 Ariz.! Special actions in this court on some of the H2O platform and now. The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court crafted a injury... And reasonable under All the circumstances Vice Chief Justice the direction of the be...