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...
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. This went on for more than twenty years without complaint. Then, the claimant built a consulting room for his medical practice at the end of his garden.
Apr 11, 2017 · The claimant built a consultation room in his new residence but complained of noise caused by the heavy machinery in adjoining house which was a biscuit factory and had been operating in the location for over 20 years. The claimant brought a case for a nuisance.
Case summaries. Sturges v Bridgman [1879] 11 Ch D 852 Court of Appeal. The defendant ran a confectionary shop which operated a noisy pestle and mortar. It had done so for over 20 years but had no neighbouring property so there were no complaints as to its use.
Bridgman Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained. Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks https://www.quimbee.com...
- 2 min
- 3.2K
- Quimbee
Facts. Doctor (C) moved into a house and built a shed to carry out his private practice. C’s shed was next to a confectioner (D) and the noise of the pestle and mortar was clearly audible from his shed. C sued D in nuisance and sought an injunction.
