Karpiak v. Russo

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that dust was not sufficient to constitute a private nuisance when appellants failed to show the dust caused health problems or affected their daily activities
• annoying and inconvenient use of adjacent property for landscaping business which generated noise and dust failed to satisfy the requirement under Restatement (Second
• affirming nonsuit at trial because the noise, which occurred during daylight hours, was “not out of character with the area”
• declining to address “whether dust is sufficient enough of a particle to constitute a trespass” because evidence failed to establish that the dust caused harm to the plaintiffs’ persons or property
• “Appellants [argue] that the evidence established a cause of action for trespass pursuant to RESTATEMENT (Second
• “The production of a sufficient amount of dust from a business can constitute a nuisance as long as the dust causes significant harm to the aggrieved party.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).