Lindsey v. DeGroot

How courts have described this case

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

• rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the RTFA amounts to an unconstitutional taking because the act essentially awarded the defendant a nuisance easement over their property
• addressing alleged operational negligence based on violations of IDEM regulations and concluding, on summary judgment, that the violations were not the proximate cause of the alleged injury
• “[W]e have found nothing to suggest that Indiana has adopted the seemingly unique Iowa holding that the right to maintain a nuisance is an easement . . . .”
• “We note that like the Idaho and Texas courts, we have found nothing to suggest that Indiana has adopted the seemingly unique Iowa holding that the right to maintain a nuisance is an easement.”
• “We note that like the Idaho and Texas courts, we have found nothing to suggest that Indiana has adopted the seemingly unique Iowa holding that the right to maintain a nuisance is an easement.”
• “We note that like the Idaho and Texas courts, we have found nothing to suggest that Indiana has adopted the seemingly unique Iowa holding that the right to maintain a nuisance is an easement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).