Amphitheaters, Inc. v. Portland Meadows
Oregon Supreme Court
198 P.2d 847 (1948)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
Two outdoor-recreation venues were built simultaneously on adjacent lots outside Portland’s city limits. Amphitheaters, Inc. (plaintiff) built a drive-in movie theater, and Portland Meadows (defendant) built a horse racetrack. Amphitheaters constructed high fences on each side of the movie screen and along an adjacent highway to keep out light from passing cars. Additionally, Amphitheaters built a shadowbox around the screen to block moonlight and starlight from interfering with the movies Amphitheaters projected. Portland Meadows constructed lights around its racetrack for nighttime races that, at several hundred feet away, cast light the equivalent of a full moon onto Amphitheaters’s screen. Amphitheaters sued Portland Meadows for trespass and nuisance. The trial court issued a directed verdict on both the trespass and nuisance theories in favor of Portland Meadows. Amphitheaters appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Brand, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
