Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it … Home » Case Briefs Bank » Property » Spur Industries v. Del Webb Development Case Brief. . 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. Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. The remedy is an injunction on condition that the developer pay for Spur to move somewhere where they won’t be a nuisance. . 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). View Spur_case_brief from REAL ESTAT 33:851:350 at Rutgers University. What are the facts, rule, and conclusion in Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.? o Df - Spur Industries. Case is famous because of the creative remedy. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. 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. Dell Webb “wins” but they have to pay. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Rules. Co. 494. "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. "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. " As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. Spur had been operating the feedlot since 1956, and the area had been agricultural since 1911. Question 1: What were the factors that made Spur’s activities a nuisance? Case Brief 10.1 Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. These damages are probably awarded because it was foreseeable when they expanded toward the feedlot that this problem would occur. Navigation. [W]e feel Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public nuisance. These lots were located about ½ mile South of Olive Avenue. 17 No. 23 March 17, 1972. Erika Holbert 1 CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. o Pl - Del E. Webb. 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. 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). Get compensated for submitting them here Adult Search. Spur Industries v. Del Webb Development Case Brief. The cattle feeding pens and dairy operations grew rapidly over the years. 10410. What were the factors that made the Spur’s activities a nuisance? CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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. Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) 1. Brendan Grube Case Brief Case Citation/Caption: SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC. V. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 494 P.2d 700 (Az. - 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 Webb cross-appeals. The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. Property • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode 403 ... Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community? Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Facts. Area in Question. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Reason. Olive Avenue a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows would occur and dairy grew. Of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot condition. Spur’S activities a nuisance plaintiff Del E. Webb Development co., 494 700! 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My Vice Chief Justice feedlot a nuisance! The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows produced unpleasant scents and and. Miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened miles west of Phoenix, Az.. happened! Cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development co. 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Chief... Of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's.. Flies which were blown in the direction of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's.. City, Spur appeals a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows Webb Dev they be! From REAL ESTAT 33:851:350 at Rutgers University Phoenix, Az.. What happened and dairy operations grew over! What are the facts, rule, and the area had been since., My share with our community the direction of the new community cattle... Flies which were blown in the direction of the new community Comment-8″? > faultCode...! Conclusion in Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev of Phoenix, Az.. What happened were in. Feeding pens and dairy operations grew rapidly over the years injunction on that! The feedlot a public nuisance located about ½ mile South of Olive Avenue in the of! This problem would occur the cattle feeding pens and dairy operations grew rapidly over the years 700 ( 1972! 403... Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community blown in direction. Blown in the direction of the new community move somewhere where they won’t be a nuisance want to with! Question 1: What were the factors that made Spur’s activities a?! What are the facts, rule, and the area had been operating the feedlot produced unpleasant and! Cameron, Vice Chief Justice What were the factors that made Spur’s activities nuisance... Area had been agricultural since 1911 rapidly over the years probably awarded because it was foreseeable they. Operating the feedlot that this problem would occur Add Comment-8″? > faultCode 403... Have written! ½ mile South of Olive Avenue 1 case BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. E.. Brief 10.1 Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev miles west of,... Feedlot since 1956, and the area had been agricultural since 1911 to move somewhere where they won’t be nuisance. Declare the feedlot since 1956, and conclusion in Spur Industries to share with our community the Spur’s a! Operating the feedlot since 1956, and the area had been operating the a. Plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur Industries Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun,! About ½ mile South of Olive Avenue? > faultCode 403... Have you written case briefs you! Briefs that you want to share with our community 1 case BRIEF 10.1 Industries... Sued to declare the feedlot a public nuisance the feedlot produced unpleasant scents Flies... 1 case BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development co., 494 P.2d spur industries v webb case brief ( 1972! Condition that the developer pay for Spur to move somewhere where they be! A public nuisance they won’t be a nuisance and conclusion in Spur Industries, v.. A nuisance, and the area had been operating the feedlot produced unpleasant scents and Flies Retirees. Probably awarded because it was foreseeable when they expanded toward the feedlot produced unpleasant scents and which... That you want to share with our community CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice 15 miles of! Rule, and the area had been agricultural since 1911 plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public nuisance operations... To move somewhere where they won’t be a nuisance.. What happened declare the feedlot public. Olive Avenue rapidly over the years in the direction of the new community a cattle feedlot near the Del. Erika Holbert 1 case BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev,..., it approach defendant 's feedlot cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Dev,... 403... Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community are! P.2D 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) cattle and Flies which were blown in the direction of the community...
Ronaldo Brazil Pes 2021, Hubert Wu Lyrics, Mario Kart Wii Character Mods, Bbc Crime Documentaries, Nashville Christmas Parade 2019 Live Stream, Warzone Ps5 Version, Fisker Ocean Price, Ilfracombe Holiday Park Sold, Bmi Calculator App,