Weinhold v. Wolff
Iowa Supreme Court
555 N.W.2d 454 (1996)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
Weinhold (plaintiff) purchased land near a property later converted into a hog feeding and confinement facility. The smell of the hog waste from the facility that Wolff (defendant) owned caused physical illness to Weinhold. About a year after beginning the hog feeding and confinement operation, Wolff sought an agricultural-area designation for the land on which the facility sat. The county board approved the application. Weinhold filed a nuisance action against Wolff, alleging noxious and offensive odors. Wolff counterclaimed and asserted an affirmative defense under statutory law that prohibits any award for damages for nuisance actions after the affected property has been included in an agricultural area as defined by the statute. The case proceeded in the trial court solely on Weinhold’s nuisance claim. The trial court found that the facility constituted a nuisance and that Wolff did not have a statutory affirmative defense against nuisance suits. The trial court ruled that the hog facility was a temporary nuisance and awarded damages for Weinhold’s pain and suffering up until the day of the trial. The trial court refused to grant injunctive relief. Both Weinhold and Wolff appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lavorato, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
