University of Montevallo v. Middle Tennessee Land Development Co.
Alabama Circuit Court
Case No. CV 2005-624 (2006)
- Written by Colette Routel, JD
Facts
The University of Montevallo (university) (plaintiff) owned a parcel of land known as the Ebenezer Wetlands Ecological Preserve (the preserve). The preserve was used for educational and research purposes and provided habitat for certain threatened and endangered species. The Middle Tennessee Land Development Company (company) (defendant) bought a nearby parcel, where it planned to create and operate a 239-acre limestone quarry. The university sued the company before the quarry could be constructed. The university pointed out that the preserve’s wetlands were fed by groundwater and rainwater, not by surface streams, rivers, or lakes. According to the university, operation of the quarry would deplete and contaminate groundwater, thereby creating a nuisance. To support its arguments, the university provided expert opinion testimony, which concluded that creation of the quarry would cause the “immediate and cataclysmic demise” of the preserve. The university sought an injunction to preclude the company from ever developing the quarry. The company countered with its own expert, who claimed that the quarry would not damage the preserve and might even be beneficial to the hydrology of its wetlands.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Harrington, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 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.
