nuisance claim in New Jersey

2020Sinclair, 195 N.J. at 66 . 21 The phrase “the essential nature of the claim[]” was referenced by this Court in Lead Paint when we were engaged in a review of the pleadings to determine whether the theory pled on the facts presented, although denoted as a nuisance claim, was in fact one of the three codified theories made exclusively actionable under the PLA. 191 N.J. at 437 .

2020Sinclair, 195 N.J. at 66 . 21 The phrase “the essential nature of the claim[]” was referenced by this Court in Lead Paint when we were engaged in a review of the pleadings to determine whether the theory pled on the facts presented, although denoted as a nuisance claim, was in fact one of the three codified theories made exclusively actionable under the PLA. 191 N.J. at 437 .

2011Private property cannot be physically harmed or its value impaired in this way, however socially desirable the conduct, without payment being made for the harm done, if the interference that is the consequence of the activity is substantial and considered to be unreasonable. [ Prosser Keeton on Torts 87 at 625 (5th ed. 1984).] Most significantly, in Martins v. Interstate Power Co., 652 N.W. 2d 657, 660-65 (Iowa 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1013 , 123 S.Ct. 1930 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 849 (2003), the court held that a property owner could maintain a nuisance claim against an electric utility for NEV o

2011Private property cannot be physically harmed or its value impaired in this way, however socially desirable the conduct, without payment being made for the harm done, if the interference that is the consequence of the activity is substantial and considered to be unreasonable. [ Prosser Keeton on Torts 87 at 625 (5th ed. 1984).] Most significantly, in Martins v. Interstate Power Co., 652 N.W. 2d 657, 660-65 (Iowa 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1013 , 123 S.Ct. 1930 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 849 (2003), the court held that a property owner could maintain a nuisance claim against an electric utility for NEV o

2011Private property cannot be physically harmed or its value impaired in this way, however socially desirable the conduct, without payment being made for the harm done, if the interference that is the consequence of the activity is substantial and considered to be unreasonable. [ Prosser Keeton on Torts 87 at 625 (5th ed. 1984).] Most significantly, in Martins v. Interstate Power Co., 652 N.W. 2d 657, 660-65 (Iowa 2002), cert. denied, 538 U.S. 1013 , 123 S.Ct. 1930 , 155 L.Ed. 2d 849 (2003), the court held that a property owner could maintain a nuisance claim against an electric utility for NEV o

2007Servs., 821 F.Supp. 999 , 1012 (D.N.J.1993) (“It is enough for a nuisance claim to stand that the [defendants] allegedly contributed to the creation of a situation which, it is alleged, unreasonably interfered with a right common to the general public.”); Friends of Sakonnet v. Dutra, 738 F.Supp. 623, 633 (D.R.I.1990) (“This court has discovered no [state] precedent that bars recovery of nuisance damages simply because the defendants no longer control the instrumentality.”); Anderson v. W.R.

2007Servs., 821 F.Supp. 999 , 1012 (D.N.J.1993) ("It is enough for a nuisance claim to stand that the [defendants] allegedly contributed to the creation of a situation which, it is alleged, unreasonably interfered with a right common to the general public."); Friends of Sakonnet v. Dutra, 738 F.Supp. 623, 633 (D.R.I.1990) ("This court has discovered no [state] precedent that bars recovery of nuisance damages simply because the defendants no longer control the instrumentality."); Anderson v. W.R.

2003One might well say that the harms alleged by the plaintiffs to have been caused by the defendants' conduct are harms that injure the citizens of Bridgeport who may be so circumstanced as to come within the influence of that conduct. [ Ganim, supra, 780 A. 2d at 132 .] *52 Moreover, a recent commentator has addressed and rejected this immunity claim advanced by the gun manufacturers as follows: [T]he government's power to civilly prevent, ameliorate, and abate a public nuisance has always extended to lawful conduct.

2003Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F. 2d 303, 315 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980 , 106 S.Ct. 384 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1985)).

2003Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F. 2d 303, 315 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980 , 106 S.Ct. 384 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1985)).

2003Co. v. Hercules, Inc., 762 F. 2d 303, 315 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 980 , 106 S.Ct. 384 , 88 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1985)).

2003Indeed, in the context of actions against gun manufacturers, even the Court in Camden County, although rejecting the County's nuisance claim on other grounds, observed that "[a] claim for public nuisance `may lie even though neither the plaintiff nor the defendant acts in the exercise of private property rights.'" Camden County, supra, 123 F.Supp. 2d at 264 (quoting Philadelphia Elec.

1996Each day’s continuance is a new or fresh nuisance.”); State v. Sommers Rendering Co., 66 N.J.Super. 334, 342 , 169 A.2d 165 (App.Div.1961) (same) The nuisance claim against the City was a continuing one.

1996Each day’s continuance is a new or fresh nuisance.”); State v. Sommers Rendering Co., 66 N.J.Super. 334, 342 , 169 A.2d 165 (App.Div.1961) (same) The nuisance claim against the City was a continuing one.

1993In light of its view that the "other invasion" language is ambiguous, Titan held that a nuisance claim (based on the discharge of "noxious odors, noise and light" from the insured's sewage treatment plant) was included within the "personal injury" definition of the policy based on the extrinsic evidence provided as to the parties' intent. 898 F. 2d at 272-273 .

1953Garfield Box Co. v. Clifton Paper Board Co., 125 N.J.L. 603 ( Sup. Ct. 1941).