Page County Appliance Center, Inc. v. Honeywell, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• declining to follow the Restatement of Torts in light of established Iowa common law precedent
• reversing district court’s denial of defendant’s motion for directed verdict on the grounds that plaintiff “did not introduce substantial evidence of a purpose on the part of either defendant to injure or destroy the Appliance Center’s business”
• The existence of a nuisance is not affected by the intent of its creator not to injure anyone
• “One’s use of property should not unreasonably interfere with or disturb a neighbor’s comfortable and reasonable use and enjoyment of his or her estate.” (emphasis added)
• \An action for damages for nuisance need not be predicated on negligence.\
• “An action for damages for nuisance need not be predicated on negligence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).