Laserfiche WebLink
GREEN v. CASTLE CONCRETE COMPANY Coln, 591 <br />1'llr m. i'~d „ , r/Y.1 I'.7d L.. <br />usability of a person's land before he can upmt a shotcing that after the quarry had <br />h;n•e a cause n( arliun under the rule Leon In uperaliun it did in Cu't ronsl itiur <br />Kerr stated. * + +" n uuls:utcc. <br />3 :lddiuonall <br />[ ] >', a reading o(the record Thus, shuuld future Llasting, dust, or <br />coneinccs us that [here is no[ sufiicicnt ulher rotnideratimn Lernnx' ;i snbstuitial <br />,ubstantial, competent evidence to support 'ntcricrence, it wnnld he tin new grounds <br />a finding of pric:+te vuisanee. See P.pan and a decision based on the prr~ent stttus <br />Pitkin Iron Corp. <br />10th Ci r. <br />4JJ F.2d <br />v `+~add not be a bar m the pb+inuf (s or any <br />, <br />. <br />. <br />iii: Ifaskcll v. Uenecr "Pramwxy Co., 23 other persons seeking injunruvc relief. <br />l;ulo. G(l, -06 I'. 121. The record is devoid It h;u been celdcnt to rouuty and state <br />of any proof that the quarry has been ur +"'thontics for some yens that quarry opcr <br />;ri(I in fact be a nuisance Speculation as ;[[ions in at Icast ncu adjacent :vcas hate <br />to the future harmful effech of blasting Lcen continuing and that large limestone <br />and from Just pollution arc not based tin formations abound in this area. Yct no <br />an} acntal ocnvn'nces other than ^ rest ttto`"t' has been made by the legislature or <br />blast Other blasting complained of was in counn• ur city offiaah to rezone the area, <br />connection kith building the road which set it aside (or parks :+nd recrea[iun, or [o <br />mould nut nvrrur. "I'hc drfend:un has nut compensate the owners for the talking. <br />been giceu an opportunity to shot.' that it Soluuous fur problems of the nrtgnihule <br />can use methods which will remedy the :tnticipated here may suggest legislative and <br />anticipatory nnl,a nee. Plaintiffs have (:+II- iw[ judicial action. <br />en short of discharging the evideutiarp \\'c (eel compelled to state that, akhongh <br />burden necessary to entitle them to an m- the goal u( creating an acstheticallp pleas- <br />juncuon on any u( the lglSe5 asserted. \\'c uig encirunnx'nt is dearly Inuda Llc, It is <br />here stated in other relevant opinwns that equally dv:u~ that ohere the accuniplish- <br />in such circumstances the Inal court shuuld meat of this goal entails the restructuring <br />6c reversed. .1 rc if otcry v. facksou, fall of societal rights and priorities iI c:umot <br />Colo. 197, 3~f3 P?d fi33; Hatckius v. @Iston, be fairly or justly done through ajudicial- <br />5ti Cola -11X1, 1J6 1'. 35-J: f);tcis c. Purscl, Ic sa netioned private cnndemua ban without <br />;; Colu. 2Ri, 133 P. 10i, cumpeus;itiun under the guise of ah;iting a <br />It shuuld Le noted that our decision i. <br />nuia:uicc. lu our populous sucic'[y, the <br />merely a holdutg than broad injuurtice putt- ruurts cuuwt be availalde to enjoin an <br />ers may not be used in advance to prohibit attn'ny solely because it causes some aes- <br />lawful Lusmrss acticny' m'hich ntay nut Lc thetic dlscum fart or annoyance. Given one <br />n nuisance. Tu do su would be unreasun- <br />myriad and dupa rate tastes, life styles, <br />ably harsh tin the defendant. \\'ithholJ utg mores, and attitudes, the availability of a <br />of injunctive relief on the base of the <br />juchrlal remedy for such camphtints would <br />resent status of upcrauons presrrvice to the `;unc mexura ble eunfuomu. <br />p <br />romplalning party the right to enjoin the ~hhr judgmcut is revcned, and the cause <br />activity if i[ m (act proves [o Le a nuisance. i< remanded wnh directions to cac;rte the <br />Ilaskcll t'. I)cnrer Tr;imwav lo. nifrit. nil mti Uuu ;md dnmisn the comphiiut. <br />I~ot example, in Tooter ~'. 5puk:un', ?`i <br />1Yash?d 331, 2,i5 I' °d .ilh), ;m injunction <br />teas denied, as it was found that the testi- <br />mony did not establish that there teas such <br />cenaimy and imminence of the ;gtprchcndal <br />annoy:utrc :uul d;unagc as tt uuld ivarra nt <br />mjnnctivc rebel. phis t+'as upheld on ap- <br />peal, although a was recognind that :tit <br />injunction might be proper in a burr rix• <br /> <br />RICI,LI':1' :md GI:O\'E~, IL, concur iu <br />the result. <br />I'Rf.VGI.I[. ('. L, dissents. <br />lihl )\~I'.~, IIPLie I` (eUnfliYrlilg ill IhC R'- <br />~ult) <br />I concur in the result under the evidence <br />m chi. rrsc. I du nut join in the propasi• <br />M plil~~ <br />3 <br />i <br />