Robyn Kent SPUR INDUSTRIES, INC., an Arizona corporation formerly Spur Feeding Co.

, an Arizona corporation, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. DEL E. WEBB DEVELOPMENT CO., an Arizona corporation, Appellee and Cross-Appellant No. 10410 Supreme Court of Arizona 108 Ariz. 178; 494 P.2d 700; 1972 Ariz. LEXIS 274; 4 ERC (BNA) 1052; 53 A.L.R.3d 861; 2 ELR 20390 March 17, 1972 Spur has been in the cattle business since 1956 and the area is deemed for agricultural use since 1911. Del Webb a developer purchased a lot of 20,000 acres in the area and built a retirement community called Sun City. Webb's community continued to grow and getting closer to the cattle operations. Spur had 20,000 30,000 head of cattle in his operations, and thus resulting in a large quantity of manure and flies to be produced, and created a foul odor. These nuisances of flies and odor were disrupting the lives of the residents of Sun City. Webb was having problems selling the remaining lots due to these ongoing issues. Thus, Webb brought suit against Spur for damages to his development.

Defendant appealed a judgment of the trial court (Arizona) permanently enjoining defendant from operating a cattle feedlot near plaintiff's residential development; plaintiff cross-appealed.

Can Spur be enjoined? Does Del Webb have to indemnify spur?

The court agreed with the trial courts decision that the nuisances within the area are an issue to the Southern residents of Sun City. They forced Spur to be enjoined, and the court affirmed this part of the conclusion. The laws can claim that a lawful business to be a nuisance. Spur was considered to be a public and private nuisance to both the residents and Del Webb itself for damages. The courts now need to address Spurs rights. His company was run lawfully and within the proper zoned area for such activities. Del Webb knowingly and willingly built within an area for agriculture. Del Webb is not able to receive payment for damages because he placed himself within the situation. Spur had not built in a path of the expanding city, but instead Webb built in the area, therefore Spur was not held responsible for the abating of the nuisance. The court had decided though that the feedlot remaining there was not in the best interest of the public. Webb was entitled to the permanent injunction against Spur because of the homeowners.

The courts ordered Webb to pay reasonable moving cost to relocate Spurs business because Webb located his development within the proximity of the feedlot and exposing the nuisance to the community. The court ordered also that each party pay for its own court cost.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 1. Did Spur create a nuisance? Yes, but it wasnt an intention nuisance. 2. Should it make a difference that Spur was there first? Yes, because Del Webb moved into an agricultural area. It did however create an public nuisance. 3. The court balanced the issue by Del Webb paying Spur to relocate.