Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) 1. What are the facts, rule, and conclusion in Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.? Case is famous because of the creative remedy. P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) FACTS: Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City (communities 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. 23 March 17, 1972. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public nuisance. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. The remedy is an injunction on condition that the developer pay for Spur to move somewhere where they wonât be a nuisance. These damages are probably awarded because it was foreseeable when they expanded toward the feedlot that this problem would occur. Rules. . Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. Get compensated for submitting them here Adult Search. Erika Holbert 1 CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. - facts= developer sued to permanently enjoin a cattle feedlot operation that was in close proximity to a residential development it was creating, the feedlot owner counterclaimed for indemnification from the developer if it was enjoined from operation Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it â¦ These lots were located about ½ mile South of Olive Avenue. Area in Question. [W]e feel Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Companyâs 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. 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. Lauren Rapaport 2/9/2020 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Case Brief In 1956, Spurs predecessors (Defendant), in conjunction with the Northside Hay Mill and Trading Company, developed cattle feeding lots. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 10410. 17 No. Spur had been operating the feedlot since 1956, and the area had been agricultural since 1911. Dell Webb âwinsâ but they have to pay. Property â¢ Add Comment-8â³?> faultCode 403 ... Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? o Pl - Del E. Webb. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. Question 1: What were the factors that made Spurâs activities a nuisance? From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. . o Df - Spur Industries. Facts. Reason. According to our text, a nuisance consists of odors, ongoing damage, excessive noise, polluted air, and dangerous facilities that may cause health concerns (Jennings, 2018). Brendan Grube Case Brief Case Citation/Caption: SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC. V. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 494 P.2d 700 (Az. Navigation. What were the factors that made the Spurâs activities a nuisance? Case Brief 10.1 Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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 facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. The cattle feeding pens and dairy operations grew rapidly over the years. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. Co. 494. Spur Industries v. Del Webb Development Case Brief. Webb cross-appeals. Home » Case Briefs Bank » Property » Spur Industries v. Del Webb Development Case Brief. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? "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. " View Spur_case_brief from REAL ESTAT 33:851:350 at Rutgers University. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My!
Elder Rune Platebody, Old Bridge Township Public Schools, Side-by Side Refrigerator Without Ice Maker And Water Dispenser, How Much Caffeine In Tetley Orange Pekoe Tea, Fedex Grand Turk, Thai Coconut Curry Chicken Wings, Tomato Farming Techniques, Rush Copley Medical Center, Highway 18 Oregon Accident Today, Lidia Italian Wedding Soup, Long-term Goals For Child, Should I Watch Fullmetal Alchemist Before Brotherhood, Nanny Goat Pinot Noir 2017, How To Fatten Up A Horse,