Nacionales v. John J. Felin & Co.

How courts have described this case

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

• with respect to claims of nuisance, “the use must be such as to produce a tangible and appreciable injury to neighboring property”
• “[n]uisance imports a continuous invasion of rights, and the occasional— ‘once or twice a week’ — errant golf ball that was found on plaintiff’s property does not constitute sufficient impairment of plaintiff’s rights”
• “one who deliberately decides to reside in the suburbs on very desirable lots adjoining golf clubs and thus receive the social benefits and other not inconsiderable advantages of country club surroundings must accept the occasional, concomitant annoyances”
• duty to warn did not extend to adjacent-resident-owner plaintiff because “[l]iving so close to a golf course, [the] plaintiff would necessarily hear numerous warning shouts each day” and could be expected to ignore them because Ms house had never been struck
• action against a country club involving allegations of errant golf balls
• no duty to warn because “only an extraordinarily misdirected shot attaining great height could possibly drop on plaintiffs property” that was not located on a “dog-leg” and was protected by a natural barrier of twenty to thirty feet of rough with forty-five to sixty-five-foot-high trees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).