Schlotfelt v. VINTON FARMERS'SUPPLY COMPANY

How courts have described this case

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

• finding substantial evidence supporting property rental value of $90 per month in absence of nuisance, or $25 in presence of nuisance
• declining to issue injunction in nuisance action for foot traffic entering plaintiff’s business because “defendant . . . should not be compelled to control its customers and in any event could not do so”
• fair test as to whether operation of lawful business constitutes nuisance is reasonableness of conducting business in manner, at place, and under circumstances in question
• “to justify the abatement of a claimed nuisance the annoyance must be such as would cause physical discomfort or injury to a person of ordinary sensibilities”
• “one has a considerably greater right to protest against the conduct of a business in a residential area where the objector has established his home with no knowledge that such an invasion is contemplated or may be attempted in the future”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).