Pestey v. Cushman
Connecticut Supreme Court
259 Conn. 345, 788 A.2d 496 (2002)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
James and Joan Pestey (plaintiff) filed a private nuisance suit against Nathan R. Cushman, Nathan P. Cushman, and Cushman Farms Limited Partnership (defendants) seeking money damages and injunctive and declaratory relief after enduring obnoxious odors emanating from defendants’ dairy farm. The defendants constructed a 42,000-square foot free stall barn and milking parlor on their land to house a herd of dairy cows and a pit in which to store the manure generated by the herd. Immediately thereafter, the Pesteys began to notice objectionable odors coming from the farm. Over time the smell worsened. Subsequently, defendants installed a mechanical digester system that broke down the manure into its constituent parts that could eventually be used as an energy source to power the system’s generators. After installation of the system, the odors intensified, evincing acrid smells of Sulphur and sewage that constantly entered the Pesteys’ land. After a trial, the jury was instructed to weigh all of the relevant factors to determine whether the defendants’ conduct constituted a nuisance and interfered with the Pesteys’ enjoyment of their property. The trial court returned a partial verdict in favor of the Pesteys and awarded damages of $100,000. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vertefeuille, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.