Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that invasion of airborne particulates [in this case pollution from the defendant’s smoke stack] could constitute a trespass under Alabama law provided the invasion causes “substantial damages” to the property
• recognizing that invasion of airborne 19 particulates [in this case pollution from the defendant‟s smoke stack] could constitute a trespass under Alabama law provided the invasion causes “substantial damages” to the property
• explaining that invasion of polluting particulates is actionable as trespass only if invasion interferes with exclusive possessory interest of plaintiffs property by causing substantial damage to property
• holding compliance with Alabama’s air pollution control law does not shield a defendant from trespass liability
• explaining the difference between a nuisance and an “actionable trespass” for an “indirect invasion” of property in which “some substance has entered upon the land itself”
• noting, “the same conduct on the part of a defendant may, and often does, result in the actionable invasion of’ exclusive possession of the property and use and enjoyment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).