Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 2014–2025 2 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona 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 |
|---|---|---|
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Servicesgreen2 sentences2024See Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty. Servs. in Ariz., 148 Ariz. 1, 4-5 (1985) (explaining that a nuisance is an interference in others’ use and enjoyment of land). ¶28 The proposed amended complaint does not name the Corporation as a defendant even though, as the retainer agreement shows, Danko’s contract was with the Corporation. 2015See Armory Park Neighborhood Ass’n v. Episcopal Cmty. Servs. in Ariz., 148 Ariz. 1, 4 , 712 P.2d 914, 917 (1985). | 2 | 2 |
Kaufmann v. Cruikshankgreen1 sentence2025Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, 148 Ariz. 314 , 316 (1986); see also Kaufmann v. Cruikshank, 222 Ariz. 488, ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (stating that court rules may provide for attorney-fees recovery). ¶10 The Dryjas have not cited, nor has our research revealed, any statute or court rule otherwise providing for a fee award to a prevailing party on a nuisance claim. | 1 | 1 |
Ayers v. Township of Jacksongreen2 sentences2018Burns concluded that, based on Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson , 106 N.J. 557 , 525 A.2d 287 , 294, 300-01 (1987), the medical costs associated with monitoring the residents' subclinical injuries was recoverable in the context of a nuisance claim. 2018Burns concluded that, based on Ayers v. Twp. of Jackson , 106 N.J. 557 , 525 A.2d 287 , 294, 300-01 (1987), the medical costs associated with monitoring the residents' subclinical injuries was recoverable in the context of a nuisance claim. | 1 | 1 |
Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Boardgreen2 sentences2018The court held that the residents had no cognizable negligence claim because the risk of future injuries was insufficient to prove the requisite element of "actual loss or damage[s]." Id. at 376 , 752 P.2d at 29 ; see also Markowitz , 146 Ariz. at 356 , 706 P.2d at 368 (stating proof of actual damages is an element of a negligence claim). ¶33 However, Burns reversed the trial court's dismissal of the residents' nuisance claim. 2018The court held that the residents had no cognizable negligence claim because the risk of future injuries was insufficient to prove the requisite element of "actual loss or damage[s]." Id. at 376 , 752 P.2d at 29 ; see also Markowitz , 146 Ariz. at 356 , 706 P.2d at 368 (stating proof of actual damages is an element of a negligence claim). ¶33 However, Burns reversed the trial court's dismissal of the residents' nuisance claim. | 1 | 1 |
Rohde v. Beztak of Arizona, Inc.green2 sentences2014This holding is unhelpful, however, because it was made in relation to a negligence claim, not a nuisance claim. ¶16 Defendants contend the court’s discussion of an implied easement of view in Rohde v. Beztak of Ariz., Inc., 164 Ariz. 383 , 793 P.2d 140 (App. 1990), is instructive. 2014This holding is unhelpful, however, because it was made in relation to a negligence claim, not a nuisance claim. ¶16 Defendants contend the court’s discussion of an implied easement of view in Rohde v. Beztak of Ariz., Inc., 164 Ariz. 383 , 793 P.2d 140 (App. 1990), is instructive. | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
CORTARO WATER USERS'ASS'N v. Steiner
green
1 sentence2025Cortaro Water Users’ Ass’n v. Steiner, 148 Ariz. 314 , 316 (1986); see also Kaufmann v. Cruikshank, 222 Ariz. 488, ¶ 7 (App. 2009) (stating that court rules may provide for attorney-fees recovery). ¶10 The Dryjas have not cited, nor has our research revealed, any statute or court rule otherwise providing for a fee award to a prevailing party on a nuisance claim. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
Sears v. Hull
green
2 sentences2018Sears , 192 Ariz. at 69-70 ¶¶ 17-22, 961 P.2d 1013 . ¶54 Moreover, while hornbook law identifies three categories of special harm (personal injury, substantial interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their own land, and pecuniary loss), this classification system is meant to facilitate discussion and is not exhaustive. 2018Sears , 192 Ariz. at 69-70 ¶¶ 17-22, 961 P.2d 1013 . ¶54 Moreover, while hornbook law identifies three categories of special harm (personal injury, substantial interference with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of their own land, and pecuniary loss), this classification system is meant to facilitate discussion and is not exhaustive. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Burns v. Jaquays Mining Corp.
green
2 sentences2018The court held that the residents had no cognizable negligence claim because the risk of future injuries was insufficient to prove the requisite element of "actual loss or damage[s]." Id. at 376 , 752 P.2d at 29 ; see also Markowitz , 146 Ariz. at 356 , 706 P.2d at 368 (stating proof of actual damages is an element of a negligence claim). ¶33 However, Burns reversed the trial court's dismissal of the residents' nuisance claim. 2018The court held that the residents had no cognizable negligence claim because the risk of future injuries was insufficient to prove the requisite element of "actual loss or damage[s]." Id. at 376 , 752 P.2d at 29 ; see also Markowitz , 146 Ariz. at 356 , 706 P.2d at 368 (stating proof of actual damages is an element of a negligence claim). ¶33 However, Burns reversed the trial court's dismissal of the residents' nuisance claim. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Kuhnle Brothers, Inc. v. County of Geauga
green
1 sentence2014Appellants’ also cite Kuhnle, 103 F.3d at 522 , in support of their continuing violations argument. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
California v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P.
green
1 sentence2014Evaluating whether the statute of limitations barred a nuisance claim, the court relied on the difference between “permanent” and “continuing” nuisances where “the crucial test 7 ANDERSON et al. v. PRESCOTT Decision of the Court for a continuing nuisance is whether an offensive condition can be discontinued or abated at any time,” concluding “Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants’ actions are abatable at any time are crucial.” Id. at 1085-86 . | 1 | 2014–2014 |
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.