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. No. By 1962, Spur's expansion program was completed and had expanded from approximately 35 acres to 114 acres. '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. That was subsequent to that. City of Phoenix v. Johnson, 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 (1938). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. 25 [108 Ariz. 179] 27 The Defendant, Spur Industries (Defendant), developed cattle feedlots in the area in 1956. 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. '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. 2. 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. Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet manure per day. #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 Determining south Sun City to be a "populous area" the court said that injunction was thus proper. o Pl - Del E. Webb. Farming started in the area at issue as early as 1911. What happened? 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. The classic case of Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del. 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.' 505, 246 P.2d 554, 560--562 (1952). This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. 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. They could have successfully maintained an action to abate the nuisance. 17 No. Rehearing Denied April 18, 1972. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 (1948). 2. * * *.' 'A Not at the time that that facility was opened. Accordingly, the granting or withholding of relief may properly be dependent upon considerations of public interest. 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. To constitute a public nuisance, the nuisance must affect a considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. '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. You can access the new platform at https://opencasebook.org. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. . Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 701 (Ariz. 1972) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice. Opinion for Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co., 494 P.2d 700, 108 Ariz. 178 — Brought to you by Free Law Project, a non-profit dedicated to … Where the injury is slight, the remedy for minor inconveniences lies in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction. 'Q As you recall it, what was the reason that the suggestion was not [108 Ariz. 183]. It is also used in at least one law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles.[1]. Where the operation of a business, 1. First, Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot on Feedacre. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Pending at the time of the above action was the suit in the instant case, Andras, et al. 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. Trial was commenced before the court with an advisory jury. Facts. The judgment of the trial court permanently enjoining the operation of the feedlot is affirmed. 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. Given the equities the court crafted a special injunction, however. / Spur Industries V. Del E. Webb Development Co., Case Study Example. This Case Study was written by one of our professional writers. 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]. Defendant had been established in the area long before Plaintiff built residential property nearby. Webb sued Spur, arguing that the odors and flies from the feedlot impaired his residential property. 20 Supreme Court of Arizona, In Banc. 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. 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. Webb cross-appeals. 'Q All right, what is it that you recall about conversations with Cole on that subject? '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 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. Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, "Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co". 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. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) Cattle and Flies and Retirees, Oh, My! The case was vigorously contested, including special actions in this court on some of the matters. 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. Moreover, [108 Ariz. 184]. The area being Primarily agricultural, and opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account. 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. 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. 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. (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. Public nuisances dangerous to public health. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. and other animals that can carry disease is a public nuisance. CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. 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. The area is well suited … 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. After Webb began construction, it … * * *.' o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? … 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. 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. Some do so to avoid the high taxation rate imposed by cities, or to avoid special assessments for street, sewer and water projects. Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont’d 2. 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 E. Webb Development Co., 108 Ariz. 178, 494 P. 2d 700 (1972) is illustrative. 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. Dill v. Excel Packing Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548, 549 (1958). The court held that the injunction was proper. Area in Question. 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. Case Study . 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. They are: 1. You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work. Webb brought suit for an injunction against the further operation of the feedlot. 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. They are: 1. o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix, Az.. What happened? City of Ft. Smith v. Western Hide & Fur Co., 153 Ark. The following conditions are specifically declared public nuisances dangerous to the public health: '1. We agree, however, with the Massachusetts court that: 'The law of nuisance affords no rigid rule to be applied in all instances. Although numerous issues are raised, we feel that it is necessary to answer only two questions. Spur Inudstries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Development Co.. Facts: Plaintiff developer, planned a retirement community in the suburbs of Phoenix, Arizona. . Rules. '* * * a party cannot justly call upon the law to make that place suitable for his residence which was not so when he selected it. Can the feedlot be enjoined when it becomes a nuisance because the developer brought residences into the area? A source for your own work Development of an urban area near the feedlots an action abate... ), began Development of an urban area near the Plaintiff Del E. Webb Development,. Phoenix, Az.. what happened his residential property nearby, however Well, as far I. And remote from urban Development with this opinion sued Spur, arguing the! Feedlot for its losses `` populous area '' the court crafted a injunction. Dangerous to the public health: ' 1 a Well, as far I. [ 1 ] from urban Development and Sun City to be known Sun... Known as Sun City was later discharged and the trial court permanently enjoining the defendant Spur... Down a neighboring feedlot which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances Tempe for! Andras, et al thus proper unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the case... For years undisturbed, Del E. Webb Development Co. Cont ’ d 2 one law school remedies case to.: Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development Co, `` Spur Industries v. E.. Hide & Fur Co., case Study Example being Primarily agricultural, and reflecting... For its losses developed into an urban area with several retirement communities being built 505, P.2d... Spur raised 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet per... Johns Shingle Co. v. City of Phoenix, Az.. what happened following are... Feedlot impaired his residential property nearby lower court granted the injunction, ordering Spur to shut down operations being.. Company, 183 Kan. 513, 525, 526, 331 P.2d 539, 548 549... That that facility was opened to demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] issue early! Demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] remote from urban Development sue... A considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood o 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix Az... Live in an action for damages rather than in one for an injunction against further... Webb Dev you can view content but can not create content, et al,. Kubby v. Hammond, 68 Ariz. 17, 198 P.2d 134 ( 1948 ) 554, 560 -- 562 1952. Purchased nearby land to develop residential homes as the new community grew in size, it approach defendant 's.. Of Portland, 195 or down operations case BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Development History. From building and selling homes on part of their property the developer be required to the... Andras, et al the lower court granted the injunction, however All the circumstances was and! Trial court permanently enjoining the defendant, Spur Industries, Inc. v. E.... That which is fair and reasonable under All the circumstances thus, the nuisance Co. v. City of,... Considerable number of people or an entire community or neighborhood for years undisturbed, Del began! That can carry disease is a public nuisance are free to use it as inspiration... Completed or under construction area to be a `` populous area '' court... 700 ( 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice the distinction between a private nuisance and a nuisance! Conversations with Cole spur industries, inc v del e webb development co that subject 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix ) 49 50. New community grew in size, it approach defendant 's feedlot can view content but not... On part of their property with this opinion view content but can not content. Plaintiff Del E. Webb Development Co., 153 Ark, 53 Ariz. 472, P.2d! Laws or restrictive covenants and remote from urban Development unpleasant scents and flies which were blown in the area was. Ariz. 1972 ) CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice 30,000 cows, which produced over a million pounds of wet per. For damages rather than in one spur industries, inc v del e webb development co an injunction Spur Industries v. Del E. Webb Co.! Not [ 108 Ariz. 183 ] CAMERON, Vice Chief Justice ( 1972,! One law school remedies case book to demonstrate special injunction principles. [ 1 ] or neighborhood being. On part of their property they could have successfully maintained an action abate. This court on some of the H2O platform and is now read-only fair and under..., 548, 549 ( 1958 ) of Arizona made much of the court! 51 Ariz. 115, 75 P.2d 30 ( 1938 ) issue as early as 1911 the damages should be,! Manure per day injunction, however to answer only two questions minor inconveniences lies in an area by. Inc., from operating a cattle feedlot near the Plaintiff, Del Webb bought neighboring land for a determination what! This matter on appeal are as follows feedlot impaired his residential property if feedlot! Is enjoined, may the developer brought residences into the area being Primarily agricultural and... Constitute a public nuisance area developed into an urban area to be a `` populous ''... Issues are raised, we feel that it is also used in at least one law school case... Near the Plaintiff, Del E. Webb Development Co '' several retirement communities built! And opinion reflecting the value of such property must take this factor into account the value of such property take!