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.
5 California opinions name it 2 courts 2000–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California 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 |
|---|---|---|
McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co.green2 sentences2018(See McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247 , 254, 172 P.2d 758 ["mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property"].) *805 Edison's reliance on Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1036 , 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , for the proposition that fear of a future injury is insufficient to support a nuisance claim is misplaced. 2018(See McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247 , 254, 172 P.2d 758 ["mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property"].) *805 Edison's reliance on Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1036 , 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , for the proposition that fear of a future injury is insufficient to support a nuisance claim is misplaced. | 1 | 2 |
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Courtgreen2 sentences2018Edison timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and denial of its posttrial motions, and Wilson timely filed a notice of cross-appeal from the denial of her attorney fee motion. *608 DISCUSSION A. Law Governing Private Nuisance Claims A private nuisance claim is a claim for "a nontrespassory interference with the private use and enjoyment of land." ( San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893 , 937, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 724 , 920 P.2d 669 ( Covalt ).) As our Supreme Court has explained, it requires proof of three elements. 2018Edison timely filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and denial of its posttrial motions, and Wilson timely filed a notice of cross-appeal from the denial of her attorney fee motion. *608 DISCUSSION A. Law Governing Private Nuisance Claims A private nuisance claim is a claim for "a nontrespassory interference with the private use and enjoyment of land." ( San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. Superior Court (1996) 13 Cal.4th 893 , 937, 55 Cal.Rptr.2d 724 , 920 P.2d 669 ( Covalt ).) As our Supreme Court has explained, it requires proof of three elements. | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Ass'n v. County of Orange
green
2 sentences2018(See McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247 , 254, 172 P.2d 758 ["mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property"].) *805 Edison's reliance on Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1036 , 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , for the proposition that fear of a future injury is insufficient to support a nuisance claim is misplaced. 2018(See McIvor v. Mercer-Fraser Co. (1946) 76 Cal.App.2d 247 , 254, 172 P.2d 758 ["mere apprehension of injury from a dangerous condition may constitute a nuisance where it interferes with the comfortable enjoyment of property"].) *805 Edison's reliance on Koll-Irvine Center Property Owners Assn. v. County of Orange (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1036 , 29 Cal.Rptr.2d 664 , for the proposition that fear of a future injury is insufficient to support a nuisance claim is misplaced. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.
green
2 sentences2022(See Friends of H Street, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 160 ; Venuto, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 129 .) However, that does not negate the requirement that one adequately plead the “unreasonableness” element in the context of a private nuisance claim. 2022(See Friends of H Street, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 160 ; Venuto, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 129 .) However, that does not negate the requirement that one adequately plead the “unreasonableness” element in the context of a private nuisance claim. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Friends of H Street v. City of Sacramento
green
1 sentence2022(See Friends of H Street, supra, 20 Cal.App.4th at p. 160 ; Venuto, supra, 22 Cal.App.3d at p. 129 .) However, that does not negate the requirement that one adequately plead the “unreasonableness” element in the context of a private nuisance claim. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert
green
2 sentences2009In Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54 Cal.2d 328 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 686 , 353 P.2d 294 ], our Supreme Court stated: “It is settled that, regardless of whether the occupant of land has sustained physical injury, he may recover damages for the discomfort and annoyance of himself and the members of his family and for mental suffering occasioned by fear for the safety of himself and his family when such discomfort or suffering has been proximately caused by a trespass or a nuisance.” (Id. at p. 337, italics added.) This court concludes that Birke is not merely a “lodger” and that a child liv 2009In Acadia, California, Ltd. v. Herbert (1960) 54 Cal.2d 328 [ 5 Cal.Rptr. 686 , 353 P.2d 294 ], our Supreme Court stated: “It is settled that, regardless of whether the occupant of land has sustained physical injury, he may recover damages for the discomfort and annoyance of himself and the members of his family and for mental suffering occasioned by fear for the safety of himself and his family when such discomfort or suffering has been proximately caused by a trespass or a nuisance.” (Id. at p. 337, italics added.) This court concludes that Birke is not merely a “lodger” and that a child liv | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Willard Rushing and Patricia Rushing v. Kansas City Southern Railway Company
green
2 sentences2000Co., supra, 185 F.3d 496 , homeowners brought a private nuisance claim against a railroad company based on noise and vibrations from a railroad switching yard. 2000Co., supra, 185 F.3d 496 , homeowners brought a private nuisance claim against a railroad company based on noise and vibrations from a railroad switching yard. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
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.