From our private database of 26,900+ case briefs...
Blanks v. Rawson
South Carolina Court of Appeals
296 S.C. 110 (1988)
Facts
Benjamin and Mary Ann Blanks (plaintiffs) lived next door to Gary Rawson (defendant). Rawson had a basketball goal near the edge of the driveway close to the property line. The Blanks stated that on one occasion, Rawson’s son listened to loud music while playing basketball. The Blanks also complained that the ball could damage property in their yard, although there was no indication that such damage actually occurred. Additionally, Rawson had a dog pen on the property line behind the driveway. The Blanks alleged that there was a smell of feces coming from the pen, whereas Rawson said that he cleaned the pen daily. Further, Rawson had a 10-foot fence, which the Blanks claimed obstructed their view of the lake. The Blanks filed suit against Rawson, contending that the basketball goal and dog pen were a nuisance and that the fence was too high. The trial court found that the basketball goal was a nuisance and ordered Rawson to remove or relocate it. The court also found that the dog pen was maintained in a filthy condition, resulting in an odor. The dog pen was thus also a nuisance, and the court ordered Rawson to remove or relocate it. Finally, the court called Rawson’s fence a hate fence and ordered Rawson to remove it or to reduce its height. Rawson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cureton, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 541,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 26,900 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
