Search results
Brief Fact Summary. For thirty years, a maker of confections conducted business in a property that use two large mortars that made a substantial amount of noise when operating. A physician, who previously had a garden in the area directly behind the mortar, decided to convert the garden into a consultation room.
- Hunt V. State
Citation69 A.3d 360 (Del. 2013) Brief Fact Summary....
- Stockett V. Tolin
Citation791 F. Supp. 1536 (S. D. Fla. 1992) Brief Fact...
- Hunt V. State
- Facts
- Issues
- Decision/Outcome
The claimant, a doctor, moved house and on the premises, he bought and built a shed in his garden to carry out his private practice within. His shed was on the boundary of the property and happened to be next door to a confectioner. The confectioner had produced sweets in his kitchen for many years before the doctor had moved in. The doctor alleged...
Whether the doctor could claim loss of amenity when he had ‘moved to the nuisance’ or not. Whether the character of the area or locality as a residential area meant that there was a nuisance.
There was a nuisance, and the fact that the doctor had ‘moved to the nuisance’ was no defence to the nuisance itself. Nor was there an easement acquired by the confectioner through long usage that entitled him to continue with his actions. What constitutes a nuisance was to be decided on a case to case basis, and it is necessary to consider the par...
Court of Appeal. Citations: (1879) 11 Ch D 852; (1879) 43 JP 716; (1879) 48 LJ Ch 785; (1879) 41 LT 219. Facts. The defendant was a confectioner whose premises neighboured the claimant’s home. The defendant used a noisy pestle and mortar from around 10am to around 1pm each day.
Jan 30, 2024 · Use case law from the jurisdiction where your case will be heard. For example, if you are going to a Maryland District Court, case law from Maryland's higher courts, such as the Court of Appeals, or the Court of Special Appeals, would be helpful. There is a chart of how the Maryland courts are organized in the Maryland Manual.
Sturges v. Crowninshield was a landmark Supreme Court case decided in 1819 that addressed the limits of state power to impair the obligation of contracts, specifically regarding bankruptcy laws.
And with respect to contracts between private parties, in the 1819 decision, Sturges v. Crowninshield, the Court held that a bankruptcy law allowing insolvent debtors to obtain the discharge of their debts by surrendering their property violated the Contract Clause. 5.
People also ask
What happened in Sturges v Bridgman?
Where can I find a copy of a Maryland Supreme Court report?
What is a Maryland Circuit Court?
What is the highest court in Maryland?
Oct 16, 2023 · Thorin Resources CEO Sturges Karban told Ouray County commissioners at a Sept. 12 meeting that his company is entirely devoted to the Camp Bird Mine, acquired several years ago and located nearby, and now the Revenue-Virginius Mine. Karban added that he’s “very excited” about the acquisition.
