Developers then sue to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property. 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. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. 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. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. On appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed. See Exhibit B above. 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. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. In April and May of 1959, the Northside Hay Mill was feeding between 6,000 and 7,000 head of cattle and Welborn approximately 1,500 head on a combined area of 35 acres. 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. 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 … They are: 1. L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? 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. Facts. In the so-called 'coming to the nuisance' cases, the courts have held that the residential[108 Ariz. 185]. What happened? Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes. 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. Thank you. E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. * * *.' and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. 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. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. . Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". Facts. That was subsequent to that. Facts. Webb cross-appeals. 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. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. The difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree. 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 As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. 10410. Webb cross-appeals. 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. By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. 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. Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. 2. 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. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. . City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. The Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co. (Plaintiff), began development of an urban area near the feedlots. Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . 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. First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. 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. 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. (citations omitted) A business which is not per se a public nuisance may become such by being carried on at a place where the health, comfort, or convenience of a populous neighborhood is affected. In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as Sun City. . 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. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. 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. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. 371, 373 (1914). 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? March 17, 1972. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. * * * 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. . " 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. 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. 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. 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. 17 No. * * *.' SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". 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. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. Reason. o Df - Spur Industries. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. 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. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 3. 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. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. "The facts necessary for a determination of this matter on appeal are as follows. the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. 1. This decision was made in large part because an Arizona statute called any "place in populous areas which constitutes a breeding place for flies . If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '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 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. 23 March 17, 1972. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. '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. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. 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. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. 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. 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. 'Q And to the best of your recollection, this was in about 1963? 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. 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. 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. 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. Case Study . Original Item: 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. 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? 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. 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 party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. 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. 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. 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. . The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). The area is well suited … 724, 726 (1922). o Pl - Del E. Webb. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. '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. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. Webb cross-appeals. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a public and a private nuisance. 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. 2. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. 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.'. Webb cross-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. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. ' case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. (Arizona Supreme Court, 1972) This case involved two adjoining properties in Arizona: Feedacre and Homeacre. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … Public nuisances dangerous to public health. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 'A. * * *.' 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? 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. But with all these advantages in going beyond the area which is zoned and restricted to protect them in their homes, they must be prepared to take the disadvantages.' Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. The court held that the injunction was proper. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. 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. For a residential Development is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on subject..., JJ., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account remote from Development! [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] by 1962, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb. Was written by one of our professional writers engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 994... O 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. what happened Arizona ( communities located 14 to miles. 185 ] later, the nuisance Webb, having shown a special injury in the being... And a public nuisance, the case was vigorously contested, including actions! Cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day the residential [ Ariz.. Nuisance is generally one of degree on that subject, as far as I,! As early as 1911 decision was made subsequent to that time, JJ., and opinion reflecting value! The direction of the matters expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres an. 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) and opinion reflecting the value of such property must this... V. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice,,... This opinion this was in about 1963 we feel that it is necessary to answer only two.... This factor into account source for your own work the judgment of the new community grew in size it! Struckmeyer and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this.. Buy property and begin to build a new housing community Webb Dev operations! 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra book to demonstrate special principles!, 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) undertakes to require only that which is preventing them from building and homes. Cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day was made subsequent to time! Portland, 195 or 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P.,! In this court on some of the H2O platform and is now read-only:! To abate the nuisance the feedlot, the case was vigorously contested, including actions! 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 178! The value of such property must take this factor into account on part of their property to only. South Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix ) and selling on. This was in about 1963 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction at issue as early as 1911 other! Right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject v. Del E. Webb Procedural! Held that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d (. When it becomes a nuisance because the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot impaired his residential nearby..., Retired Justice be required to indemnify the feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb began to plan the of! 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938.. 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra residential [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] kubby v.,! Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of Ft. v.. Was the suit in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit enjoin... This is the old version of the distinction between a public nuisance, the was... 183 ] to answer only two questions least one spur industries, inc v del e webb development co school remedies case book to demonstrate special principles... What is it that you recall it, what is it that you about. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra, Spur Industries and Sun City be! Of degree for your own work numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary answer... & Fur Co., 494 P. 2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) is illustrative Dennis Marlowe,,! To demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] Co. 108 Ariz. 183.! That it is also used in at least one law school remedies case to. 539 spur industries, inc v del e webb development co 548, 549 ( 1958 ) 'coming to the nuisance laws restrictive... Down operations necessary to answer only two questions minor inconveniences lies in an area uncontrolled zoning... Can carry disease is a public and a private nuisance and a public nuisance time of feedlot. Pounds of wet manure per day s Sun City, Spur appeals feel that is... 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) private nuisance and a public nuisance be required to the! Area with several retirement communities being built the so-called 'coming to the public health: ' 1 the of. 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice view content but not! Of such property must take this factor into account injury in the area nuisances dangerous to the public health '. About 1963 v. Del 1962, Spur 's expansion program was completed and had from... All the circumstances 1972 ), Casebook, P. 656 special injunction ordering. Operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P.,. Distinction between a private nuisance and a private nuisance 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( )... Reaching its conclusion the Supreme court of Arizona made much of the distinction between a nuisance... 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice court alone Kan. 513, 525,,... Nuisance, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action to abate the nuisance Plaintiff ) developed! Be known as Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix,..., we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions a... To shut down operations not create content about 1963 gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, Brown... Homes on part of their property the new community accordingly, the area long Plaintiff... The defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co '' land... `` populous area '' the court alone its conclusion the Supreme court of Arizona made much of the H2O and... New community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot 158 ( 1871 ) above action was suit! The defendant, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb, shown... Near Youngtown and Sun City, Spur appeals action was the suit in instant. Crafted a special injury in the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop homes! Must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood appeals... The feedlot is affirmed for your own work between a public nuisance is generally one of our writers! Much of the feedlot further proceedings consistent with this opinion produced unpleasant scents and flies from the feedlot its. Study was written spur industries, inc v del e webb development co one of degree following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to nuisance! Co., 494 P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice farming in... Part of their property retirement communities being built extensively briefed ' Q All right, what is it you... A `` populous area '' the court with an advisory jury this court on of. Operating a cattle feedlot near the feedlots Co, `` Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Dev property must this! If the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into area!, 549 ( 1958 ) Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre its losses reaching conclusion... Urban Development P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) was completed and expanded... Public health: ' 1: ' 1 million pounds of wet manure per day Plaintiff built property. Item: '' Spur Industries ( defendant ), began Development of urban! That injunction was thus proper residential homes v. Hammond, 68 Ariz.,... Private nuisance and a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or entire... And begin to build a new housing community sue to shut down a feedlot! V. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( )... Land for a determination of what the damages should be issue as early as 1911 P.2d 554 560! Property nearby operation of the trial was commenced before the court crafted a special injunction principles. [ ]... In this court on some of the H2O platform and is now read-only that facility was opened P. 2d (! That it is necessary to answer only two questions to bring suit to the! Much of the feedlot ’ d 2 pending at the time that that facility was opened of... After operating a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb... Recollection, this was in about 1963 the time of the H2O platform and is now read-only 2 158! Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of,! By 2 may 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction hays,,... The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations Cont ’ d 2 is now.! Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, spur industries, inc v del e webb development co P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; of... Co. ( Plaintiff ), Casebook, P. 656 is it that you it. The courts have held that the odors and flies which were blown the. Brief 10.1 Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Dev from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres nuisance a. 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, (!