17 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2024 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Indiana courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Kb Home Indiana Inc. v. Rockville Tbd Corp.green2 sentences2023KB Home Ind. Inc. v. Rockville TBD Corp., 928 N.E.2d 297, 307 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). [8] Koltz contends, and the trial court found, that Morken is not entitled to fees because Koltz’s complaint did not include a request to “abate or enjoin” a nuisance under Section 32-30-6-7. 2011“A nuisance claim generally contemplates an action that is designed to cease or lessen the defendant’s continued offensive behavior.” KB Home Indiana, 928 N.E.2d at 307. | 2 | 2 |
Gray v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.green2 sentences2024Id. at 54 . 2010See Gray, 624 N.E.2d at 51-53 (upholding the sufficiency of a nuisance claim for environmental damage to real property in an instance where the defendants' last disposal of toxic chemicals occurred in 1962 and the complaints were not filed until 1985). | 1 | 2 |
Connie Yates, Rick Yates, Jason Tibbs, and Pauline Tibbs v. Levi Wayne Kempgreen1 sentence2023Cf. Yates v. Kemp, 979 N.E.2d 678, 681-82 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (analyzing Indiana Code § 14-22-31.5-6 in the context of a nuisance claim brought against shooting range operator). | 1 | 1 |
Wendt v. Kerkhofgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., id. at 976-77 (holding that even if the juvenile court erred in its assignment of the burden of proof, such error was harmless in light of “overwhelming evidence”); Wendt v. Kerkhof, 594 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that although the trial court erred by finding that a legal doctrine applied to the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, any error was harmless because the trial court nevertheless made a proper ruling and the plaintiffs did not show they were prejudiced), trans. denied. 2. | 1 | 1 |
Ps by Harbin v. Wsgreen1 sentence2014See, e.g., id. at 976-77 (holding that even if the juvenile court erred in its assignment of the burden of proof, such error was harmless in light of “overwhelming evidence”); Wendt v. Kerkhof, 594 N.E.2d 795, 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (holding that although the trial court erred by finding that a legal doctrine applied to the plaintiffs’ nuisance claim, any error was harmless because the trial court nevertheless made a proper ruling and the plaintiffs did not show they were prejudiced), trans. denied. 2. | 1 | 1 |
Goode v. City of Atlantagreen2 sentences2011See e.g., Goode v. City of Atlanta, 274 Ga.App. 233, 236, 617 S.E.2d 210, 213 (2005) ("an isolated act of negligence cannot form the basis of a nuisance claim”); Breeding ex rel. 2011See e.g., Goode v. City of Atlanta, 274 Ga.App. 233, 236, 617 S.E.2d 210, 213 (2005) ("an isolated act of negligence cannot form the basis of a nuisance claim”); Breeding ex rel. | 1 | 1 |
Breeding Ex Rel. Breeding v. Hensleygreen2 sentences2011Breeding v. Hensley, 258 Va. 207, 213 , 519 S.E.2d 369, 372 (1999) (stating that in order to recover for nuisance, "[m]ore than sporadic or isolated conditions must be shown”); H. 2011Breeding v. Hensley, 258 Va. 207, 213 , 519 S.E.2d 369, 372 (1999) (stating that in order to recover for nuisance, "[m]ore than sporadic or isolated conditions must be shown”); H. | 1 | 1 |
People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co.green2 sentences2003Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta USA Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2001); Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 , 780 A.2d 98 (2001); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91 , 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 204 (N.Y.App.Div.2008). 2003Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta USA Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2001); Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 , 780 A.2d 98 (2001); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91 , 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 204 (N.Y.App.Div.2008). | 1 | 1 |
Molargik v. West Enterprises, Inc.green2 sentences2002See, e.g., Molargik v. West Enter., Inc., 605 N.E.2d 1197, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (concluding that a business’s industrial nature is an affirmative defense to a nuisance claim even though not designated as such in the Indiana Code); see also Black's Law Dictionary 430 (7th ed.1999) (defining affirmative defense as "[a] defendant’s assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff’s or prosecution's claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are trae.”). 2002See, e.g., Molargik v. West Enter., Inc., 605 N.E.2d 1197, 1199 (Ind.Ct.App.1993) (concluding that a business's industrial nature is an affirmative defense to a nuisance claim even though not designated as such in the Indiana Code); see also BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 430 (7th ed.1999) (defining affirmative defense as "[a] defendant's assertion raising new facts and arguments that, if true, will defeat the plaintiff's or prosecution's claim, even if all allegations in the complaint are true."). | 1 | 1 |
Bezell v. Stategreen2 sentences1988See Bezell, supra, 352 N.E.2d 809 . 1988See Bezell, supra, 352 N.E.2d 809 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Indiana. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
green
2 sentences2016The Court noted that “a public nuisance may exist without an underlying independent tort,” that “[h]ere the complaint does allege negligence and resulting predicable injury,” but that “a nuisance claim may be predicated on a lawful activity conducted in such a manner that it imposes costs on others.” Id. at 1234 . 2016The Court noted that “a public nuisance may exist without an underlying independent tort,” that “[h]ere the complaint does allege negligence and resulting predicable injury,” but that “a nuisance claim may be predicated on a lawful activity conducted in such a manner that it imposes costs on others.” Id. at 1234 . | 2 | 2007–2016 |
Martin v. Richey
green
1 sentence2019We reject the Plaintiffs' attempt to repackage their nuisance claim to avoid the effects of the RTFA. 9 The Plaintiffs curiously direct us to Martin v. Richey , 711 N.E.2d 1273 (Ind. 1999), to support their claim that they have a vested right to pursue a nuisance claim to protect their properties. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Yeager and Sullivan, Inc. v. O'NEILL
green
2 sentences2016The Court observed that “[n]ui-sances may arise from a lawful activity” and pointed to Yeager & Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, 163 Ind.App. 466 , 324 N.E.2d 846 (1975), in which this court “held that ‘[w]hile the keeping of hogs, being a lawful enterprise, cannot be characterized as an absolute nuisance or a nuisance, per se, such an activity can become a nuisance per accidents by reason of the manner in which the hogs are kept, the locality or both.’” Id. at 1234 n. 9 (quoting Yeager, 163 Ind.App. at 474 , 324 N.E.2d at 852 ). 2016The Court observed that “[n]ui-sances may arise from a lawful activity” and pointed to Yeager & Sullivan, Inc. v. O’Neill, 163 Ind.App. 466 , 324 N.E.2d 846 (1975), in which this court “held that ‘[w]hile the keeping of hogs, being a lawful enterprise, cannot be characterized as an absolute nuisance or a nuisance, per se, such an activity can become a nuisance per accidents by reason of the manner in which the hogs are kept, the locality or both.’” Id. at 1234 n. 9 (quoting Yeager, 163 Ind.App. at 474 , 324 N.E.2d at 852 ). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
American United Life Insurance Co. v. Douglas
green
1 sentence2012Indiana Code section 32-30-6-6 describes a nuisance as: “Whatever is: (1) injurious to health; (2) indecent; (3) offensive to the senses; or (4) an obstruction to the free use of property; so as essentially to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property.” The Defendants contend summary judgment was proper on David’s nuisance claim because, in their 11 In Douglas, the Court of Appeals held despite being a misstatement of the law, the representation was still actionable in fraud under an exception because the representing parties “claimed an expertise in tax planning.” Id. at 70 | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Pickett v. Brown
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 708 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co.
green
1 sentence2009Likewise, in Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co., 132 S.W.3d 544 (Tex.App.2004), the plaintiffs challenged the Texas counterpart to our Right to Farm Act claiming that the provision limiting the circumstances under which a nuisance claim could be brought against a farming operation violated both the Texas and federal constitutions because the limitation amounted to a “taking.” The Texas Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs claim and concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish *1259 the required elements of a taking. 132 S.W.2d at 549. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Moon v. North Idaho Farmers Ass'n
green
1 sentence2009Id. at 645 . | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis, LLC
green
1 sentence2007The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a trial on the merits. 6 Biddle v. BAA Indianapolis, LLC, 830 N.E.2d 76 (Ind.Ct.App.2005), vacated. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp.
green
2 sentences2003Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta USA Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2001); Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 , 780 A.2d 98 (2001); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91 , 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 204 (N.Y.App.Div.2008). 2003Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta USA Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2001); Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 , 780 A.2d 98 (2001); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91 , 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 204 (N.Y.App.Div.2008). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Camden County Board of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta
green
1 sentence2003Camden County Bd. of Chosen Freeholders v. Beretta USA Corp., 273 F.3d 536 (3d Cir.2001); Ganim v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 258 Conn. 313 , 780 A.2d 98 (2001); People v. Sturm, Ruger & Co., 309 A.D.2d 91 , 761 N.Y.S.2d 192, 204 (N.Y.App.Div.2008). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Hopper v. Colonial Motel Properties, Inc.
green
1 sentence2003Id. at 187 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Place v. Sagamore Center, Inc.
green
2 sentences1995Place, 604 N.E.2d at 671 , is another instructive case on the nuisance exception to the doctrine of caveat lessee. 1995Place, 604 N.E.2d at 675 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.