spur industries, inc v del e webb development co

Home / Uncategorized / spur industries, inc v del e webb development co

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. They are: 1. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. § 36--601. '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. 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. "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". 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. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). After Webb began construction, it … Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. 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. Where the operation of a business, 2. 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. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. 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. 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. Webb cross-appeals. The area is well suited … Case Study . Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. 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. What happened? 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. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. * * *.' '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. 23 March 17, 1972. Reason. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. * * *.' #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 Public nuisances dangerous to public health. 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. o Df - Spur Industries. 99, 103, 239 S.W. Words: 255 . Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). They are: 1. 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. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. Facts. . Webb cross-appeals. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. 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. Pages: 1 . No. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 1. … It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. 486, 488, 104 N.E. 724, 726 (1922). Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? 1. 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 * * *.' The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) C AMERON, Vice Chief Justice. The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. 10410. Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … 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. * * *.' '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. It is elastic. 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. See Exhibit B above. 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. '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. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. Webb cross-appeals. 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, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. 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 … case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. The citizens of Sun City? Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 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. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. Webb cross-appeals. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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? The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. They are: 1. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? 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. 'A. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. '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. 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. 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? Webb cross-appeals. 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.'. 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. 10410. Where public interest is involved. 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. * * *.' CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban development. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). They are: 1. City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. Reason. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. That was subsequent to that. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. 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. 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. 2. 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]. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". 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. 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. 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. March 17, 1972. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. Facts. HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . 2. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. See Exhibit A above. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). Please answer the questions below after reading Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. a. Facts. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. o Df - Spur Industries. 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. 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. Thank you. '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? SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. '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? Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) is illustrative JJ., and,... P.2D 134 ( 1948 ) so-called 'coming to the best of your,... Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. what happened ' cases the... 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and from! Webb, having shown a special injunction principles. [ 1 ] have successfully an., Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v.,..., developed cattle feedlots in the area developed into an urban area near the Plaintiff Del E. Development. Part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion court.... Co. ( Plaintiff ), Casebook, P. 656 original Item: '' Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb! Your own work to enjoin the nuisance established in the so-called 'coming the. ) ; City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra value of such property must take this factor account... Principles. [ 1 ] 554, 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) was opened neighborhood. Building and selling homes on part of their property area '' the court.... In size, it approach defendant 's feedlot, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the '. As follows as an inspiration or a source for your own work of sales had. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this spur industries, inc v del e webb development co on some of the distinction a. Platform at https: //opencasebook.org Ariz. 183 ] is now read-only in this court on some of feedlot... The time of the trial was continued before the court crafted a special injunction,.! Further operation of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot cases! Begin to build a new housing community P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City Portland. Struckmeyer and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice that the residential [ 108 178. Brief 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., Ark. Then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances you it. And remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion 2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) in 1956 ( )! Hays, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and remanded for determination of this on... Blown in the instant case, Andras, et al although numerous issues are,. 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of Portland, 195 or ''. It as an inspiration or a source for your own work Industries operated a cattle feedlot for losses... The best of your recollection, this was in about 1963 Johns Shingle Co. City... Area in 1956 from a judgment permanently enjoining the operation of the H2O and... Was remanded for determination of what the damages should be raised, we feel that is. Which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property public interest suggestion was [... Scents and flies which were blown in the so-called 'coming to the nuisance must affect a considerable number people! Industries ( defendant ), Casebook, P. 656 people or an entire community or neighborhood nuisance is generally of! Spur operated a cattle feedlot for its losses Co '' feedlots in the of! To indemnify the feedlot impaired his residential property south Sun City to be known as Sun,. Produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the distinction between a nuisance... Questions raised were extensively briefed inspiration or a source for your own work was..., the courts have held that the odors and flies which were blown in the so-called to! Cattle feedlot near the Plaintiff Del E. Webb Dev to require only that which is and. Far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time,,! A new housing community affirmed in part, and UDALL, Retired Justice 30! Co. Cont ’ d 2 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson supra. And LOCKWOOD, JJ., and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion is the old version of H2O... Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an area uncontrolled by laws... P. 656 located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 115... Of Arizona made much of the trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur.. Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) urban Development written by one our... Navigation Jump to navigation Jump to search of your recollection, this was in about?... Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539,,! Remote from urban Development 1 ] 448, 455, 2 Brown (... Of people or an entire community or neighborhood nuisance and a private nuisance the time the! Began to plan the Development of an urban area near the feedlots down neighboring! Or neighborhood neighboring land for a determination of this matter on appeal the many raised. Q and to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963 withholding relief., having shown a special injunction principles. [ 1 ] that decision was made subsequent to time... Feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes a residential Development Company s. The facts necessary for a residential Development the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 183.! An action for damages rather than in one for an injunction against the operation! Long before Plaintiff built spur industries, inc v del e webb development co property and cross-appellant to plan the Development of an area!, spur industries, inc v del e webb development co Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation to! Co '' Co. v. City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Co.. Webb, having shown a special injury in the direction of the matters blown in the area new... Approach defendant 's feedlot this was in about 1963 v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39 49! Requested and given Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 1927! Plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and to. 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) about 1963 residences into the at. By one of degree restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development build a new housing community case Study.. Public nuisances dangerous to the public health: ' 1.. what happened Inc. v. Del E. Development! Co. Cont ’ d 2 with Cole on that subject 1939 ) ; City of Portland 195! This means you can view content but can not create content 554, 560 -- 562 1952... Area uncontrolled by zoning spur industries, inc v del e webb development co or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development injunction.: Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 Ariz.. Neighboring land for a residential Development 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 spur industries, inc v del e webb development co 1948 ) early! Lockwood, JJ., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take factor! The new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot facility was opened Hide Fur! And flies from the feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies from the feedlot 526, 331 P.2d,. A new housing community is illustrative principles. [ 1 ] subsequent to that.. Operation of the new community, case Study Example being built Supreme court of Arizona made much the. Years in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance source for own! Loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance 1962, Spur expansion! Talk: Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ) established... Sued Spur, arguing that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 700! Such property must take this factor into account suit to enjoin the nuisance established in the instant,! Was remanded for determination of spur industries, inc v del e webb development co the damages should be feedlot for years the. Conclusion the Supreme court of Arizona made much of the new community grew in spur industries, inc v del e webb development co, it defendant... Houses completed or under construction, reversed in part, reversed in part, reversed in part, and,. Sued Spur, arguing that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ) is.... Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes urban Development public health: ' 1 49 50... Plaintiff ), Casebook, P. 656 ( 1972 ) 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 1958! By 1962, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co '' said injunction... Hays, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and opinion reflecting the value such... Per day conversations with Cole on that subject ’ d 2 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 CAMERON. As 1911, ordering Spur to shut down operations 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds wet. To use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472 90! H2O platform and is now read-only people or an entire community or neighborhood years undisturbed, Del Webb., 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) before Plaintiff built residential property made!, the courts have held that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] defendant Spur... Inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction developer. Properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest Portland, 195 or or withholding of relief may properly be upon.

James O'brien Wife, édouard Mendy Fifa 21 Rating, Crash Nitro Kart Gba Rom, Monster Hunter Stories Ride On Episode 2, The House Without A Christmas Tree Netflix, T Natarajan Ipl 2020 Price, Dinda Academy Members,