nuisance claim in Kansas

2024First, Nelson argues that the odors and fly infestations that Ross complains about are legally insufficient to support a nuisance claim under our court's decision in Dill v. Excel Packing Co., 183 Kan. 513 , 331 P.2d 539 (1958).

2024First, Nelson argues that the odors and fly infestations that Ross complains about are legally insufficient to support a nuisance claim under our court's decision in Dill v. Excel Packing Co., 183 Kan. 513 , 331 P.2d 539 (1958).

2022Most significantly, in Eastman v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, 295 Kan. 470, 471 , 284 P.3d 1049 (2012), Benjamin and Marcita Eastman sued Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC after it "accidentally released 7 about 90,000 gallons of crude oil into floodwaters of the Verdigris River in Coffeyville." The Eastmans originally asserted a nuisance claim but later sought to recover damages under K.S.A. 65-6203, which required compensation to be paid by the person responsible for an accidental release of materials harmful to the waters or soil to the property owner where the

2022Most significantly, in Eastman v. Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, 295 Kan. 470, 471 , 284 P.3d 1049 (2012), Benjamin and Marcita Eastman sued Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC after it "accidentally released 7 about 90,000 gallons of crude oil into floodwaters of the Verdigris River in Coffeyville." The Eastmans originally asserted a nuisance claim but later sought to recover damages under K.S.A. 65-6203, which required compensation to be paid by the person responsible for an accidental release of materials harmful to the waters or soil to the property owner where the

2013Stat. § 55-1210(b), which the state court ruled was limited to gas migrating to adjoining property.’ [Citation omitted.] That limitation does not apply to this nuisance claim.” 697 F.3d at 1272 n.7.

2013Stat. § 55-1210(b), which the state court ruled was limited to gas migrating to adjoining property.’ [Citation omitted.] That limitation does not apply to this nuisance claim.” 697 F.3d at 1272 n.7.

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2008Nicholas v. Nicholas, 277 Kan. 171, 189 , 83 P.3d 214 (2004) (noting that a nuisance claim is personal and does not survive death); Vickridge Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Catholic Diocese of Wichita, 212 Kan. 348, 354 , 510 P.2d 1296 (1973) (listing tort elements); Cities Service Oil Co. v. Grunder, 149 Kan. 82, 86-87 , 86 P.2d 495 (1939) (citing authority regarding quiet enjoyment).

2007In Culwell v. Abbott Construction Co., 211 Kan. 359, 364 , 506 P.2d 1191 (1973), we discussed the relationship between nuisance and negligence: “Nuisance is a field of tort liability rather than a type of tortious conduct.

2007In Culwell v. Abbott Construction Co., 211 Kan. 359, 364 , 506 P.2d 1191 (1973), we discussed the relationship between nuisance and negligence: “Nuisance is a field of tort liability rather than a type of tortious conduct.

2007App. 42, 53-54 , 354 S.E.2d 296 , rev. denied 320 N.C. 177 (1987) (private nuisance is more than threat of contamination; threat must amount to substantial interference with use of the property, mere diminution in value is not enough); Golen v. Union Corp., 718 A.2d 298, 300 (Pa. Super. 1998) (alienability and diminution in value are relevant to calculate damages but are not cognizable injuries of themselves); Walker Drug Co., Inc. v. La Sal Oil Co, 972 P.2d 1238, 1244 (Utah 1998) (inability to use property as collateral to secure a mortgage loan because of fears arising from contamination of

2007App. 42, 53-54 , 354 S.E.2d 296 , rev. denied 320 N.C. 177 (1987) (private nuisance is more than threat of contamination; threat must amount to substantial interference with use of the property, mere diminution in value is not enough); Golen v. Union Corp., 718 A.2d 298, 300 (Pa. Super. 1998) (alienability and diminution in value are relevant to calculate damages but are not cognizable injuries of themselves); Walker Drug Co., Inc. v. La Sal Oil Co, 972 P.2d 1238, 1244 (Utah 1998) (inability to use property as collateral to secure a mortgage loan because of fears arising from contamination of

2007See Adams v. Star Enterprise, 51 F.3d 417, 422-23 (4th Cir. 1995) (applying Virginia law) (no recovery for a private nuisance which is not visible or otherwise capable of physical detection from plaintiffs property); Rudd v. Electrolux Corp., 982 F. Supp. 355, 369 (M.D.N.C. 1997) (need actual interference [cause] substantial enough to reduce market value [effect]); Miller v. Jasinski, 17 Ark.

2006Moreover, the Empire court stated that a trial court’s discretion in granting injunctive relief “is bounded by the [Sarnpel] criteria.” 273 Kan. at 87 .

1999An intentional nuisance “requires that the actor act with the purpose of causing the nuisance, or know that it is resulting or substantially certain to result from his or her conduct.” United Proteins, 259 Kan. at 732 .

1979In Medford v. Board of Trustees of Park College, 162 Kan. 169 , 175 P.2d 95 (1946), this court stated: " Dictum often develops in opinions from comments upon arguments advanced by counsel for the respective parties.

1979In Medford v. Board of Trustees of Park College, 162 Kan. 169 , 175 P.2d 95 (1946), this court stated: " Dictum often develops in opinions from comments upon arguments advanced by counsel for the respective parties.

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

1975We ... decline to engraft solely for plaintiff's benefit the nuisance exception to the immunity previously accorded the Kansas turnpike authority under our law as it existed prior to Carroll. " (l.c. 774.) (Emphasis supplied.) Prior to our decision in Carroll the common-law immunity concept was attacked from time to time as violating constitutional guarantees. ( McCoy v. Board of Regents, 196 Kan. 506 , 413 P.2d 73 ; Caywood v. Board of County Commissioners, 194 Kan. 419 , 399 P.2d 561 .) In Carroll we judicially altered the immunity doctrine so that it applied uniformly to all units of govern

1958It has also been held that in an action tried by the court, which makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, the conclusions of law should be supported by the findings made. ( Hajny v. Robinson Milling Co., 156 Kan. 506 , 134 P.2d 398 .) The nuisance doctrine operates as a restriction upon the right of an owner of property to make such use of it as he pleases, and is *520 applied to that class of wrongs which arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable or unlawful use by a person of his own property which produces such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will

1958It has also been held that in an action tried by the court, which makes findings of fact and conclusions of law, the conclusions of law should be supported by the findings made. ( Hajny v. Robinson Milling Co., 156 Kan. 506 , 134 P.2d 398 .) The nuisance doctrine operates as a restriction upon the right of an owner of property to make such use of it as he pleases, and is *520 applied to that class of wrongs which arise from the unreasonable, unwarrantable or unlawful use by a person of his own property which produces such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort or hurt that the law will

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930In the opinion in that case this court said: “The proceeding was not a trial, but an inquest, to which the constitutional provision for jury trials does not apply.” (p. 62.) State, ex rel., v. Herbert, 96 Kan. 490 , 152 Pac. 667 , was a bastardy proceeding, and the court said: “In a proceeding of this kind, the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right, and its denial was not error.” (Syl. |J 2.) One proceeded against for contempt for violating an injunction enjoining him from maintaining a nuisance in violation of the intoxicating liquor laws of this state is not entitled

1930In the opinion in that case this court said: “The proceeding was not a trial, but an inquest, to which the constitutional provision for jury trials does not apply.” (p. 62.) State, ex rel., v. Herbert, 96 Kan. 490 , 152 Pac. 667 , was a bastardy proceeding, and the court said: “In a proceeding of this kind, the defendant is not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right, and its denial was not error.” (Syl. |J 2.) One proceeded against for contempt for violating an injunction enjoining him from maintaining a nuisance in violation of the intoxicating liquor laws of this state is not entitled

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1930(State, ex rel., v. Durein, 46 Kan. 695 , 27 Pac. 148 ; State v. Thomas, 74 Kan. 360 , 86 Pac. 499 ; State v. Johnston, 78 Kan. 615 , 97 Pac. 790 ; State v. Sides, 95 Kan. 633 , 148 Pac. 624 ; State, ex rel., v. Howat, 109 Kan. 376 , 198 Pac. 686 .) The proceeding by which a delinquent and neglected child under sixteen years of age is placed under the care of the state is a statutory one, not found in common law.

1915In The State v. Briggs, ante, p. 92, 145 Pac. 866 , this court said: “Under chapter 165 of the Laws of 1911 a sale of liquor or the maintenance of a nuisance in violation of the prohibitory law by one who is shown to have pre viously violated such law is deemed to constitute such person a persistent violator. ' “Whether such repeated violations be few or many as shown by the evidence on the trial of a charge consisting of one or many counts they constitute not many offenses but one, the penalty for which is imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for not more than one year.” (Syl. ¶¶ 1,

1915In The State v. Briggs, ante, p. 92, 145 Pac. 866 , this court said: “Under chapter 165 of the Laws of 1911 a sale of liquor or the maintenance of a nuisance in violation of the prohibitory law by one who is shown to have pre viously violated such law is deemed to constitute such person a persistent violator. ' “Whether such repeated violations be few or many as shown by the evidence on the trial of a charge consisting of one or many counts they constitute not many offenses but one, the penalty for which is imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labor for not more than one year.” (Syl. ¶¶ 1,