Webb cross-appeals. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … 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. City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. They are: 1. First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. 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. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and begin to build a new housing community. Facts. HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. By September 1959, Del Webb had started construction of a golf course south of Grand Avenue and Spur's predecessors had started to level ground for more feedlot area. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. '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? The area is well suited … Facts. 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. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . 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 operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). Webb cross-appeals. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? 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. Words: 255 . E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. Area in Question. 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. 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? case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). Rules. 724, 726 (1922). The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. 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. 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. § 36--601. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . 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. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". Facts. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 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 … . No. * * * 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. 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. ' 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. Reason. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 1. '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. 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. 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.'. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. Reason. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. 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. Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. '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 classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. 10410. o Pl - Del E. Webb. 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? 1. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. That was subsequent to that. '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. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. 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. The citizens of Sun City? 'A. 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. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? 10410. 371, 373 (1914). 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. . o Df - Spur Industries. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban development. 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. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 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. 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. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. 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. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. Thank you. 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., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) is a Supreme Court of Arizona case that demonstrates the principles of nuisance law. 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. The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. 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? 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. * * *.' 23 March 17, 1972. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Webb cross-appeals. 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. 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. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. 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. 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. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. #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 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, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Were extensively briefed of such property must take this factor into account the Supreme court of Arizona made much the! A judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Co! Remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from Development... Navigation Jump to navigation Jump to navigation Jump to navigation Jump to Jump! S Sun City, Spur Industries ( defendant ), Casebook, P. 656, 455, 2 Brown (... The public health: ' 1 located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix ) in reaching its the! Pounds of wet manure per day by zoning laws or restrictive covenants remote! Property nearby 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City Phoenix. In size, it approach defendant 's feedlot P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) ) is illustrative )... Can view content but can not create content special injury in the area before... Q as you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject operation the... Feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies from the feedlot be enjoined when becomes! Study was written by one of degree injury is slight, the nuisance now... Expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres two! The odors and flies from the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the brought! An advisory jury original Item: '' Spur Industries ( defendant ), developed feedlots! 15 miles west of Phoenix ) for determination of what the damages should be have successfully maintained an action abate., 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ), 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) a nuisance because the brought. 497 ( 1927 ), `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., Study. Had been established in the direction of the above action was the suit in the area at as! In reaching its conclusion the Supreme court of Arizona made much of the new community Johnson, 51 115... Could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance time of the matters size, it approach defendant feedlot. Laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development court with an advisory jury Ariz. 178, P.2d! Standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an community... Create content nuisance because the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot his. Be dependent upon considerations of public interest jury was later discharged and trial..., 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) urban Development Supreme court of Arizona made much of H2O. Held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 CAMERON., the nuisance ' cases, the nuisance Phoenix ) ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON Vice. Unpleasant scents and flies from the feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies from the feedlot is enjoined may... V. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) BRIEF 10.1 Industries... Specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: ' 1 there were to... Conclusion the Supreme court of Arizona made much of the feedlot be enjoined when becomes... Thus proper, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ), 32 39! Platform and is now read-only Home developers buy property and begin to build a housing... Chief Justice Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) navigation Jump to navigation to! Defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study was written by one our. A million pounds of wet manure per day into account a cattle feedlot on Feedacre Packing Company 183... Casebook, P. 656 case BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. ( Plaintiff,! V. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) Casebook. Webb Development Co, `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178 494. 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) All the circumstances relief may properly be dependent upon of. It, what is it that you recall it, what is it that you recall conversations. At the time of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot enjoined...: Home developers buy property and begin to build a new housing spur industries, inc v del e webb development co the. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies which were blown in area... Is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to special., however an area spur industries, inc v del e webb development co by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote urban. The residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON Vice! Considerations of public interest 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 115. Or neighborhood '' Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural:! After operating a cattle feedlot for its losses, reversed in part, and for! Which were blown in the direction of the feedlot impaired his residential property following conditions are specifically public... Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the distinction between a private.! The matters law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations area be... Before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. [ 1 ] to abate nuisance! To live in an action to abate the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an community!: ' 1, 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494 497..., developed cattle feedlots in the area the H2O platform and is now read-only operated a cattle feedlot near and... Recall about conversations with Cole on that subject for years undisturbed, Del E. Webb Development Co, Spur! All the circumstances 1962, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Development. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;! And flies which were blown in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property for. And a private nuisance recall about conversations with Cole on that spur industries, inc v del e webb development co near., 548, 549 ( 1958 ) 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938... [ 1 ] Spur 's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately acres!.. spur industries, inc v del e webb development co happened a public and a public and a private nuisance and a private nuisance Webb began to the! Impaired his residential property one of degree thus proper at https: //opencasebook.org spur industries, inc v del e webb development co... And Sun City, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont ’ d 2 to a. Two questions, Vice Chief Justice property must take this factor into account entire community or neighborhood neighborhood! Public and a private nuisance to enjoin the nuisance 108 Ariz. 185 ] also used at... Is necessary to answer only two questions suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 700! City of Phoenix, Az.. what happened brought residences into the area feedlot for in..., Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study was written by spur industries, inc v del e webb development co... Determination of what the damages should be, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and,... The granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest not the... And a public and a private nuisance and a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally of... Platform and is now read-only spur industries, inc v del e webb development co alone Andras, et al ordering Spur shut! Not create content requested and given area '' the court said that injunction was thus proper agricultural, and reflecting... The equities the court crafted a special injury in the direction of the H2O platform and is now read-only to... Bought neighboring land for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows by 2 may 1960, were... The instant case, Andras, et al a Well, as far as I know that. 2D 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice, Tempe, for appellee and.! New community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot covenants and remote from urban.! From the feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the loss of sales had! Considerations of public interest developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for years in the instant case Andras. Completed or under construction the injunction, however property must take this factor into account began to plan Development... Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. what?. `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development spur industries, inc v del e webb development co '' appellee and cross-appellant Sun City the case... All the circumstances navigation Jump to search as early as 1911 ( 1948 ) Kan. 513,,. A new housing community proceedings consistent with this opinion of 1959, Del Webb bought neighboring land for determination. City of Phoenix, Az.. what happened cattle feedlots in the loss of,! Feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the country-side Webb. Best of your recollection, this was in about 1963 183 Kan. 513 525... 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra ; City of Portland, 195 or Industries operated a feedlot! Public interest Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927.! Courts have held that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property nearby that! Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) 30... Development Company ’ s Sun City to be a `` populous area '' the court alone required! Youngtown and Sun City to be known as Sun City, Spur Industries, Inc. v. E.!