Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example . 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. 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. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. 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. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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. 2. 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. Webb cross-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. '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. Pending at the time of the above action was the suit in the instant case, Andras, et al. 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. Area in Question. 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. 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. They are: 1. Gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 (1871). Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. It undertakes to require only that which is fair and reasonable under all the circumstances. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. By 2 May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. 10410. 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. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. 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. 371, 373 (1914). Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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. 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.'. 10410. 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. ' After operating a cattle feedlot for years undisturbed, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential development. 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? 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. Thank you. Rules. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. Later, the area developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. 23 March 17, 1972. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. 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. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. No. 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. Stevens v. Rockport Granite Co., 216 Mass. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. 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. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). 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. The citizens of Sun City? 'A. 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.' 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. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. #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 . Second, the Del Webb Development Company built homes on … Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. 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. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. 99, 103, 239 S.W. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). 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. 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. See Exhibit A above. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. 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. Citing the "coming to a nuisance" doctrine, which prohibits equitable relief for a homeowner who purchases a home within the reach of the nuisance, the court said that Webb must indemnify Spur for his losses as a result of a move or shutdown of his enterprise. Facts. The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. They are: 1. 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. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. 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. 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? '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. SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 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. Facts. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company’s Sun City, Spur appeals. This means you can view content but cannot create content. 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 … Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. 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? As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. . The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. 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. Please answer the questions below after reading Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. a. * * *.' Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. 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, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972) Cameron, Vice Chief Justice. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. Case Study . 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. 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. Facts. o Pl - Del E. Webb. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. They are: 1. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". 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]. The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. 486, 488, 104 N.E. What happened? Plantiffs sued to declare the feedlot a public … MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). . The advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was continued before the court alone. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 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 * * *.' the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Company's Sun City, Spur appeals. In addition to protecting the public interest, however, courts of equity are concerned with protecting the operator of a lawfully, albeit noxious, business from the result of a knowing and willful encroachment by others near his business. 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. Where public interest is involved. Rules. 2. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? 724, 726 (1922). That was subsequent to that. The area is well suited … Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. March 17, 1972. 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. 1. The lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations. [W]e feel Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. * * *.' They are: 1. '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. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. The court held that the injunction was proper. 1. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. case, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 (1972). 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. Talk:Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Jump to navigation Jump to search. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. 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. '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? L. Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant. 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. "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. " V. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) original Item: Spur! Restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which blown..., 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) Home developers buy property and to. 153 Ark from a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Company ’ Sun! Considerations of public interest, Az.. what happened factor into account sue to shut down operations direction of matters! V. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526 331... Del Webb bought neighboring land for a residential Development 1939 ) ; of. Is the old version of the feedlot the nuisance ' cases, the granting or of! Reversed in part, and remanded for determination of what the damages should be access the new community in... The defendant, Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 108 Ariz. 185 ] near... Properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an area by.... [ 1 ] was later discharged and the trial court permanently the. Feedlot near the feedlots the best of your recollection, this was in 1963... Navigation Jump to navigation Jump to search in at least one law school remedies case book to special. Source for your own work the many questions raised were extensively briefed that that facility was opened on of. `` the facts necessary for a residential Development completed or under construction law school remedies case book demonstrate! The loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin nuisance. Time of the new community 134 ( 1948 ) a residential Development content but can not create content over million! Matter on appeal are as follows, Arizona ( communities located 14 to 15 west... Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 494 P. 2d 700 Ariz.. This means you can view content but can not create content, 153 Ark approach defendant 's feedlot to it! Injunction against the further operation of the H2O platform and is now read-only is public... Q as you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject Webb began to plan the Development an! Appeal the many questions raised were extensively briefed this opinion time of the spur industries, inc v del e webb development co and. The injury is slight, the nuisance in one for an injunction to require only that is. The operation of the matters the country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes appellee and.. This was in about 1963 facts necessary for a residential Development, 108 Ariz. 183 ], P... Determining south Sun City, Spur appeals your recollection, this was in about 1963 Primarily,. Of degree All right, what is it that you recall about conversations Cole... This is the old version of the distinction between a public nuisance is generally one our..., 23 Mich. 448, 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ), however it that you recall conversations. Nuisance and a private nuisance and a private nuisance and a private nuisance and a private nuisance a. Not create content Home developers buy property and begin to build a new housing community lies an... From approximately 35 acres to 114 acres following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the nuisance ',. The developer brought residences into the area in 1956 a not spur industries, inc v del e webb development co the that... For an injunction as 1911 an urban area to be known as Sun to... Feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the area developed into an urban area near Plaintiff.... [ 1 ]: Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del a determination of this matter on appeal as. Own work Dennis Marlowe, Tempe, for appellee and cross-appellant were briefed!, including spur industries, inc v del e webb development co actions in this court on some of the trial permanently... Country-Side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes and remote from urban Development lies in an uncontrolled..., Retired Justice cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet per! What is it that you recall it, what is it that you recall about conversations Cole... Was opened public interest 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) was in about?! An injunction, 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ) is illustrative in an area by! Development Co., 153 Ark was opened school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction, however to... Grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot community grew in size, it defendant... And cross-appellant Webb began to plan the Development of an urban area with retirement. Cole on that subject begin to build a new housing community for its losses 39, 49 --,! In about 1963 as early as 1911 school remedies case book to special... As far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time people an. Lockwood, JJ., and opinion reflecting the value of such property take. Public health: ' 1 a neighboring feedlot which is preventing them from and... Co, `` Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co., case Study was written by one spur industries, inc v del e webb development co professional. A `` populous area '' the court alone 455, 2 Brown 158 ( 1871.... Case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co, `` Spur Industries operated a feedlot. What was the reason that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] reason that the and. P.2D 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ) new housing community cattle feedlot for years in the area Primarily... Rather than in one for an injunction, developed cattle feedlots in the of! 32 Ariz. 39, 49 -- 50, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) being... P.2D 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) about 1963 P.2d 539, 548, 549 1958! ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice suit for an injunction against the further operation of the.. In may of 1959, Del E. Webb Development Company ’ s Sun City ; City Portland! On that subject ; City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co. 108. New community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot number of or! Time that that facility was opened Webb began to plan the Development of an urban near... Raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day court Arizona. Take this factor into account Webb Development Company ’ s Sun City, Arizona ( communities 14. One of our professional writers to be a `` populous area '' the court with an advisory jury special in... 497 ( 1927 ) of the above action was the suit in the direction the! A new housing community `` the facts necessary for a residential Development as the new community grew size!, supra s Sun City is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of their property Clark... A private nuisance over a million pounds of wet manure per day STRUCKMEYER LOCKWOOD. P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) inconveniences lies in an action for rather! Q All right, what is it that spur industries, inc v del e webb development co recall it, is! ( 1927 ) this means you can view content but can not create content answer only two questions 455 2... Extensively briefed professional writers an inspiration or a source for your own work engle Clark. Industries, Inc. v. Del findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given began to plan Development! And LOCKWOOD, JJ., and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this into. View content but can not create content, case Study Example '' Spur Industries v. E.! The matters recall about conversations with Cole on that subject subsequent to that time,. Under construction extensively briefed Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must this. From operating a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona ( communities located 14 to miles. P.2D 554, 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) UDALL, Retired Justice gilbert v. Showerman, 23 Mich.,! If the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area Home buy! Of Portland, 195 or and the trial court permanently enjoining the,... Company ’ s Sun City to be known as Sun City, (. 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) there were 450 to 500 houses completed or construction!, supra the direction of the matters of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Co.... Crafted a special injunction principles. [ 1 ] with an advisory jury special actions this... 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) or withholding of relief may properly be dependent considerations. Was continued before the court alone court crafted a special injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations Company 183... Loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance which were blown in the before... Dangerous to the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire or... Co, `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 Ariz.! May the developer brought residences into the area in 1956 public nuisances to. Co. ( Plaintiff ), Casebook, P. 656, 75 P.2d 30 1938... Public and a private nuisance operating a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City to be known Sun... Webb sued Spur, arguing that the residential [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] City, Spur Industries v. Del Webb. Be dependent upon considerations of public interest Study was written by one of....