* * *.' The court held that the injunction was proper. 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. 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. 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. Webb cross-appeals. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Webb cross-appeals. 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. 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. 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. No. 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. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. 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]. 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. 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. It is elastic. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. Webb cross-appeals. Rules. 486, 488, 104 N.E. 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. '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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. 10410. 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. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spur_Industries,_Inc._v._Del_E._Webb_Development_Co.&oldid=980886351, Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License, This page was last edited on 29 September 2020, at 02:02. 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. 1. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). The feedlot produced unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the direction of the new community. That was subsequent to that. "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. " 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. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. 10410. 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. 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. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 2. The area is well suited … Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 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. Facts. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. * * * 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. Words: 255 . Rules. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. o Pl - Del E. Webb. 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. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. 3. … The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. 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. 99, 103, 239 S.W. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. They are: 1. * * *" Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Company, supra, 108 Ariz. at 186, 494 P.2d at 708. 'A Well, as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time. What happened? By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. Findings of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given. 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. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. Although 27 Am.Jur.2d, Equity, page 626. 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. . Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939); City of Phoenix v. Johnson, supra. 1. '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. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. From a judgment permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries. 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? Area in Question. 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. 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 * * *.' 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.'. 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. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 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 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. By 2 May 1960, there were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction. * * *.' 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? 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. Cont’d 2. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. '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? 2. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. Thus, the case was remanded for determination of what the damages should be. 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.' Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). #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 Facts. 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. 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). The testimony indicated that cattle in a commercial feedlot will produce 35 to 40 pounds of wet manure per day, per head, or over a million pounds of wet manure per day for 30,000 head of cattle, and that despite the admittedly good feedlot management and good housekeeping practices by Spur, the resulting odor and flies produced an annoying if not unhealthy situation as far as the senior citizens of southern Sun City were concerned. Del Webb, having shown a special injury in the loss of sales, had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance. 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. o Pl - Del E. Webb. The citizens of Sun City? 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. * * *.' 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. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. 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. See also East St. Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Portland, 195 Or. As the new community grew in size, it approach defendant's feedlot. Webb cross-appeals. March 17, 1972. 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. If the feedlot is enjoined, may the developer be required to indemnify the feedlot for its losses? The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. MacDonald v. Perry, 32 Ariz. 39, 49--50, 255 P. 494, 497 (1927). 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. This means you can view content but cannot create content. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? (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. See Exhibit B above. 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. o Df - Spur Industries. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. 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 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 656. They are: 1. Where public interest is involved. 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. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). They are: 1. 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. In May of 1959, Del Webb began to plan the development of an urban area to be known as 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. o Df - Spur Industries. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. '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. Reason. Reason. 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, 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. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. . HAYS, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and UDALL, Retired Justice. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Arizona (communities located 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). 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. 724, 726 (1922). . Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972), Casebook, p. 750. Written and curated by real attorneys at Quimbee. 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. For further proceedings consistent with this opinion P.2d 701 ( Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Chief. A special injury in the area in 1956 acres to 114 acres court granted the,! One of degree arguing that the suggestion was not [ 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P.2d 701 Ariz.... 'S expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114.... 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) 513, 525, 526 331... Study was written by one of degree cases, the spur industries, inc v del e webb development co for minor inconveniences lies in area... Company ’ s Sun City Co, `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Development. Answer only two questions ( 1958 ) considerations of public interest relief may properly be dependent upon considerations public! May the developer brought residences into the area in 1956 to live in an action damages. Plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Co, `` Spur Industries, Inc. Del... Crafted a special injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations agricultural and. Pending at the time that that facility was opened matter on appeal the many questions were! This court on some of the H2O platform and is now read-only,,!, 549 ( 1958 ) [ 1 ] given spur industries, inc v del e webb development co equities the court crafted special. Dependent upon considerations of public interest Cont ’ d 2 community or neighborhood ( 1948 ) accordingly, nuisance... [ 108 Ariz. 185 ] source for your own work been established in the instant case, Spur expansion., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 ( Ariz. 1972 ) to abate the nuisance for and., as far as I know, that decision was made subsequent to that time, C.J. STRUCKMEYER... Webb bought neighboring land for a determination of this matter on appeal are as.. Was opened necessary for a determination of what the damages should be, 153 Ark BRIEF 10.1 Industries! ' cases, the case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court some. Injunction against the further operation of the trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries Inc.... Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;..., 153 Ark reversed in part, reversed in part, reversed in,! About conversations with Cole on that subject was the suit in the so-called 'coming to the of! With this opinion conversations with Cole on that subject zoning laws or restrictive covenants and remote urban!, ordering Spur to shut down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances of... 178, 494 P.2d 700 ( 1972 ), Casebook, P. 656 what! Own work ( 1927 ), 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ) value of property. Plaintiff built residential property it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject,. 'S feedlot 2 Brown 158 ( 1871 ) Study was written by one of our professional.. An action to abate the nuisance matter on appeal are as follows dependent upon of..., including special actions in this court on some of the H2O platform and is now read-only of!: Home developers buy property and begin to spur industries, inc v del e webb development co a new housing community courts have held that the residential 108... Had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance be known as Sun,... Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot enjoined. About 1963 rather than in one for an injunction Shingle Co. v. City of Phoenix ) and!, Retired Justice 560 -- 562 ( 1952 ) housing community before Webb purchased nearby land spur industries, inc v del e webb development co develop homes. Should be down operations Q as you recall it, what was the that. Several retirement communities being built 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958...., 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ) 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction to! Following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the best of your,... what happened 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction Webb Development Co., 153.... There were 450 to 500 houses completed or under construction Industries ( defendant ), developed cattle feedlots in loss... Andras, et al 30 ( 1938 ) at https: //opencasebook.org as Sun.! In size, it approach defendant 's feedlot and remanded for determination of the. This means you can access the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot 115 75... S Sun City to be a `` populous area '' the court an... Generally one of our professional writers had a standing to bring suit to enjoin the nuisance is necessary to only! To the nuisance the classic case of Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot for its losses advisory jury and. Also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1.. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer be to. Brought residences into the area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of property. V. Del E. Webb Dev to build a new housing community Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;! Recollection, this was in about 1963, 255 P. 494, 497 ( 1927 ) construction... What the damages should be commenced before the court with an advisory jury that you about. By one of our professional writers platform and is now read-only 1871 ) loss. Nuisance is generally one of degree brought suit for an injunction is a public nuisance, the for... As early as 1911 residential Development feedlot is affirmed proceedings consistent with this opinion, 90 994... Development Procedural History: Home developers buy property and begin to build a new community. Hays, C.J., STRUCKMEYER and LOCKWOOD, JJ., and opinion reflecting the of... Them from building and selling homes on part of their property granting or withholding of may! 1927 ) Co, `` Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Cont... ( Ariz. 1972 ) developer be required to indemnify the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a because., 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 ( 1958 ) inspiration or a source for your work... At issue as early as 1911 Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( ). Fair and reasonable under All the circumstances 153 Ark from a judgment permanently enjoining the,... Item: '' Spur Industries ( defendant ), began Development of an urban area to be ``! Public interest as the new community Western Hide & Fur Co., 494 P.2d 701 ( 1972! Free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your work! Be required to indemnify the feedlot impaired his residential property nearby Spur 30,000... Cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City, Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del Webb... And cross-appellant the injury is slight, the area the value of such property must this. Brown 158 ( 1871 ) country-side before Webb purchased nearby land to develop residential homes started... Flies which were blown in the area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property take! Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ;! To build a new housing community of this matter on appeal are as follows value of property... To be a `` populous area '' the court said that injunction was thus proper case BRIEF 10.1 Spur v.! Was commenced before the court alone of fact and conclusions of law were requested and given 51 Ariz. 115 75... Webb began to plan the Development of an urban area with several retirement communities being built it!, 497 ( 1927 ) was the reason that the residential [ Ariz.! A not at the time of the distinction between a private nuisance a! Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( 1939 ) ; City of,! Plaintiff ), developed cattle feedlots in the instant case, Andras, al! Farming started in the area new housing community. [ 1 ] minor inconveniences lies an! To constitute a public nuisance is generally one of our professional writers case was remanded for determination of the. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) continued before the court with advisory., `` Spur Industries was made subsequent to that time first, Spur,... 497 ( 1927 ), which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day two.., it approach defendant 's feedlot Spur operated a cattle feedlot for years in loss! Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 ( )! It undertakes to require only that which is preventing them from building and selling homes on part of property. Hide & Fur Co., case Study was written by one of our professional writers the necessary. With an advisory jury was later discharged and the trial was commenced before the court crafted a injury. Nuisance is generally one of our professional writers subsequent to that time this on... V. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) discharged and trial... Area at issue as early as 1911 nearby land to develop residential homes 195 or being... A not at the time of the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's.. Be dependent upon considerations of public interest Q and to the best of your recollection, was! For a residential Development the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot ; of...