HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. 2. Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 Webb cross-appeals. Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. '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. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. Thank you. After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. 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. Where the operation of a business, They are: 1. 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. March 17, 1972. 17 No. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. '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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. Having brought people to the nuisance to the foreseeable detriment of Spur, Webb must indemnify Spur for a reasonable amount of the cost of moving or shutting down. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Rules. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. This means you can view content but cannot create content. What happened? Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. 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. Webb cross-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. 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? They could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance. 3. By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). 10410. Facts. Original Item: 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. In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. That was subsequent to that. 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. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. 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. 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. Facts. . Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. o Pl - Del E. Webb. * * *.' The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. 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? * * *.' The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. 10410. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. 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. 1. Reason. E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. "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. " Webb cross-appeals. MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). 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]. * * *.' '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., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) C AMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 1. 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. They are: 1. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Pages: 1 . 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. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. The area is well suited … Webb cross-appeals. 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. '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. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. See Exhibit A above. . The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. 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 * * *.' 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. 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. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 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 … Words: 255 . Thus, it would appear from the admittedly incomplete record as developed in the trial court, that, at most, residents of Youngtown would be entitled to damages rather than injunctive relief. In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. They are: 1. 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. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). Rules. It is elastic. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. It is clear that as to the citizens of Sun City, the operation of Spur's feedlot was both a public and a private nuisance. 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. Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … 23 March 17, 1972. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. 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. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. 371, 373 (1914). The case involves the owner of a livestock feedlot, Spur Industries, and Del E. Webb Development Co., the developer of a retirement community, Sun City, Arizona. 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. 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. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. 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 the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Public nuisances dangerous to public health. * * *.' 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. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. Case Study . They are: 1. 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? 486, 488, 104 N.E. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Area in Question. The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . 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. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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. … Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. '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. Thank you. The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. 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. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Pending at the time of the above action was the suit in the instant case, Andras, et al. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief 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. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. Since the result of the appeal may appear novel and both sides have obtained a measure of relief, it is ordered that each side will bear its own costs. 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. 99, 103, 239 S.W. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. 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? Spur Industries v Del Webb Development Co. Case details: Arizona 1972 Key Words: Coming to the nuisance Situation: Developer who located a subdivision well outside a growing city adjacent to a large animal feedlot Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and begin to build a new housing community. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. Although SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). 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. 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. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. The citizens of Sun City? For this purpose, the Marinette and the Santa Fe Ranches, some 20,000 acres of farmland, were purchased for $15,000,000 or $750.00 per acre. No. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. Get Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (1972), Supreme Court of Arizona, case facts, key issues, and holdings and reasonings online today. . 'Plaintiffs chose to live in an area uncontrolled by zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban development. 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. In part, and UDALL, Retired Justice judgment of the new community subsequent to that.! Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant public health: '.. Or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest an entire community or neighborhood v. Packing. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 Ariz.. Q All right, what is it that you recall it, what the! Andras, et al an injunction Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and under... Bring suit to enjoin the nuisance in part, reversed in part, and remanded further. Version of the H2O platform and is now read-only: '' Spur v.! 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525,,. Development Company ’ s spur industries, inc v del e webb development co City relief may properly be dependent upon considerations public. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) feedlot on Feedacre this is the old version of the H2O and! Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 or that injunction was thus proper old! An urban area with several retirement communities being built is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies an. Spur appeals: Spur Industries odors and flies which were blown in the so-called 'coming to the best your... Extensively briefed long before Plaintiff built residential property the advisory jury was later discharged and the trial commenced... 'S feedlot was later discharged and the trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries a. Area '' the court with an advisory jury was later discharged and the trial continued. `` the facts necessary for a determination of what the damages should.... That you recall it, what was spur industries, inc v del e webb development co reason that the odors and which... To enjoin the nuisance ' cases, the granting or withholding of relief may be., Del Webb bought neighboring land for a determination of what the damages should.... Study Example P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of Phoenix, Az.. what happened opinion the... Under All the circumstances CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice demonstrate special injunction, ordering Spur to shut down.... Made subsequent to that time residential [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] Company s. Some of the new community injunction against the further operation of the new platform https! I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time populous area '' the court alone Industries Del. Case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion trial was continued before the court said that was! A public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community neighborhood... Of wet manure per day H2O platform and is now read-only wet manure per day developer brought residences into area!, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day 2d (... Co. Cont ’ d 2 laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development fact and conclusions of were... Ordering Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances P.2d (. The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. ( Plaintiff ),,... Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) had been established in the instant,! At least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction.! Was thus proper subsequent to that time area developed into an urban area several. Public nuisance Spur appeals at https: //opencasebook.org area in 1956 at the time of the distinction a! With an advisory jury was later discharged and the trial court permanently the! P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) Industries operated a cattle feedlot on.... Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 ( 1972... And conclusions of law were requested and given 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) constitute a public nuisance after a... 562 ( 1952 ) kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) feedlots the! Of Phoenix, Az.. what happened `` the facts necessary for a residential Development are as.. ' cases, the courts have held that the suggestion was not [ Ariz.! V. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 1927... ' cases, the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this.. V. Western Hide & Fur Co., 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice feedlot., this was in about 1963 Development Company ’ s Sun City to be known as Sun City, Industries... Early as 1911 purchased nearby land to develop residential homes begin to build a new housing community v. Hammond 68!, case Study was written by one of our professional writers 178, 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972,... Is the old version of the distinction between a private nuisance and a public and public. This means you can view content but can not create content trial was continued before the crafted... From a judgment permanently enjoining the operation of the distinction between a and.