California Codes

Cal. Civil Code § 3482 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 49 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1945–2026 · leading case: Bd. of Water Works Trs. of the City of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, as Tr. of Drainage Districts 32, 42, 65, 79, 81, 83, 86, & Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 2 & 51 & Buena Vista Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 19, 890 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2017).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Bd. of Water Works Trs. of the City of Des Moines, Iowa v. Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, as Tr. of Drainage Districts 32, 42, 65, 79, 81, 83, 86, & Calhoun Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 2 & 51 & Buena Vista Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors & Sac Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors as Jt. Trs. of Drainage Districts 19, 890 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2017). · cites it 2× “, Cal. Civ. Code § 3482 (West, Westlaw current through 2016 Reg.”

Citizens for Odor Nuisance Abatement v. City of San Diego, 8 Cal. App. 5th 350 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 3× “The trial court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment, finding (1) the City did not have a duty to prevent harms caused by wild animals; (2) there was no triable issue that the City’s conduct caused the alleged nuisance; and (3) Civil Code section 3482 barred nuisance…”

Otay Land Co. v. U.E. Ltd., L.P., 225 Cal. Rptr. 3d 119 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). · cites it 3× “The trial court determined Plaintiffs' nuisance and trespass claims lacked merit because the 1965 Permit barred them pursuant to Civil Code section 3482 ; the UE Defendants, as former owners, consented to any alleged nuisance or trespass; and Plaintiffs consented to the state of…”

ZACK'S, INC. v. City of Sausalito, 165 Cal. App. 4th 1163 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “Resting on the proposition that “[njothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance” (Civ. Code, § 3482), City asserted that the 1957 statute provided it “expressQ authorit[y]” to lease a portion of that tidewater street for…”

Flynn v. Hurley Enter., Inc., 2015 ND 58 (N.D. 2015). · cites it 6× “, is identical to and was derived from California Civil Code § 3482, and court decisions interpreting the California statute are relevant.”

Greater Westchester Homeowners Ass'n v. City of Los Angeles, 603 P.2d 1329 (Cal. 1979). · cites it 2× “Civil Code Section 3482 (5a) City contends that LAX cannot be liable for nuisance because the noise generating activity complained of is specifically sanctioned by statutes, federal and state.”

People v. Conagra Grocery Prods. Co., 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 499 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2017). “" ( *553 Civ. Code, § 3482.) Health and Safety Code section 17920.”

Williams v. Moulton Niguel Water Dist., 232 Cal. Rptr. 3d 356 (Cal. Ct. App. 5th 2018). · cites it 3× “) Civil Code section 3482 applies here for two reasons.”

Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento, 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8597 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “Discussion I No Cause of Action Against the City for Nuisance The acts alleged by plaintiffs do not state a cause of action against the City under the circumstances of this case.”

Browne v. Cnty. of Tehama, 213 Cal. App. 4th 704 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013). “) Petitioners contend the nuisance provisions of the Ordinance are barred by Civil Code section 3482. 15 Civil Code section 3482 provides: “Nothing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.”

Wilson v. S. California Edison Co., 234 Cal. App. 4th 123 (Cal. Ct. App. 2015). “” According to Edison, because the undisputed evidence establishes that the stray voltage Wilson experienced is an unavoidable byproduct of grounding, and the substation’s grounding is both required by and fully compliant with PUC regulations, Civil Code section 3482 applies.”

Carson Harbor Vill., Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 990 F. Supp. 1188 (C.D. Cal. 1997). · cites it 3× “The Government Defendants California Civil Code Section 3482 precludes the state law claims against the Government Defendants.”

Show all 49 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.