| Venue: | AZ SC |
| Facts: | Del Webb develops properties near Spur's feedlot. It stinks, and there are flies, etc. Some of the properties have been sold. Webb alleges that the feedlot is a nuisance, and seeks an injunction. |
| Posture: | Injunction granted in the court below. |
| Issue: | Three:
|
| Holding: | Yes, yes, and yes. Affirmed, and remanded for a hearing about damages. |
| Rule: | When there are many interests at stake, "coming to the nuisance" goes by the wayside, and an injunction can issue, but if there's a simple and straightforward way to mitigate the damages of the injunction, there can also be indemnification. |
| Reasoning: | Ordinarily, the fact that the feed lot pre-existed Webb's development
would stop this suit in its tracks, because they clearly "came to
the nuisance," and therefore can't complain about its burden.
But... In this case, there are a lot of properties already sold to relatively innocent parties. And a feedlot is noxious. At the same time, Webb brought those homeowners to the nuisance, so it should pay the costs of relocation. |
| Dicta: | |