Ind. Code » Title 32
Indiana Code

Ind. Code § 32-30-6-6 (2026)

Nuisance described and considered subject to an action

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaInd. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

     Sec. 6. 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, is a nuisance, and the subject of an action.

[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 34-19-1-1.]

As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 44 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reed v. Reid, 980 N.E.2d 277 (Ind. 2012). · cites it 6× “” I.C. § 32-30-6-6. These are questions for the jury.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 72 N.E.3d 892 (Ind. 2017). · cites it 4× “” I.C. § 32-30-6-6 (2008 Repl.). Plaintiffs may bring “[a]n action to abate or enjoin a nuisance” if their “property is injuriously affected” or their “personal enjoyment is lessened” by the nuisance.”
Gary Bowling & Mable Bowling v. Christopher Nicholson & Shelley Nicholson, 51 N.E.3d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 6× “Specifically, this lawsuit was brought under Ind.Code § 32-30-6-6, for [the Bowlings’] property-related nuisance claims.”
Darrell Birge & Sandra Birge v. Town of Linden, Indiana, 57 N.E.3d 839 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 32-30-6-6 defines 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.”
Lindsey v. DeGroot, 898 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Ind.Code § 32-30-6-6 (2003). When deciding whether or not the use of property amounts to a nuisance, it is necessary to balance the competing interests of the affected landowners, and in doing so, we must use a common sense approach.”
Indiana Ins. Co. v. Patricia Kopetsky, & KB Home Indiana Inc., 11 N.E.3d 508 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 4× “Pursuant to Ind. Code § 32-30-6-6 , such conduct constitutes a nuisance.”
City of Gary Ex Rel. King v. Smith & Wesson Corp., 776 N.E.2d 368 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 4× “" Ind.Code § 32-30-6-6 (emphasis added). It is clear from the language of the statute that an interference with property is a sufficient, but not a necessary condition of a public nuisance claim.”
Kb Home Indiana Inc. v. Rockville Tbd Corp., 928 N.E.2d 297 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code section 32-30-6-6 defines a nuisance as: Whatever is: (1) injurious to health; (2) indecent; (8) 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 .”
Dennis Samples v. Steve Wilson & Donald & Ingrid Bannon, husband & wife, & Ronald & Edna Bannon, husband & wife, 12 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Indiana Code Section 32-30-6-6 defines an actionable 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…”
Smith & Wesson Corp. v. City of Gary, 875 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “The dispositive issue is whether the PLCAA bars the City’s public nuisance claim. As the Indiana Supreme Court held in the prior appeal of this case: Indiana nuisance law is grounded in a statute enacted in 1881, and now appearing at Indiana Code section 32-30-6-6.”
KS&E Sports & Edward J. Ellis v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 66 N.E.3d 940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 4× “Nuisance [17] The Indiana Statute section 32-30-6-6 defines nuisance as “[w]hatever is (1) injurious to health; (2) indecent; (3) offensive to the senses; or (4) an obstruction Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1501-CT-42 | March 17, 2016 Page 10 of 32 to the free use…”
Stickdorn v. Zook, 957 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “The Stickdorns alleged in Count I of the complaint that the Zooks’ and Lantzes’ *1019 past and ongoing animal waste storage, disposal, and land application activities violated numerous state laws and constituted a nuisance under Indiana Code section 32-30-6-6. Thus: 37. As a…”
Show all 44 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.