early 1900s, the Samuels Company has operated a salvage
was expanded to salvaging metals from automobiles.
was zoned to heavy industrial.
areas include: Residential and Commercial.
up metal from railroad car and drop the metal on the
conveyor belt. Metal is again dropped from the conveyor
belt, and then hammered.
repeated violated the ordinary and will continue to do so to the
injury of the public.
sleep, domestic discord, suspension of home remodeling, moving
expenses, rattling of windows, loss of outdoor hobbies, loss of
use of porches and yards for relaxation, rattling of pictures,
furniture, beds and dishes.
times the sounds caused by the operation
exceeded the maximum
permissible decibel levels and sound frequencies established by
the city ordinance of Portage.
emanating from the salvage yard
exceeded permissible displacement values
prescribed by the ordinance for
areas zoned heavy industrial.
complaints came from the same person. (Chief
injunction to enjoin a public nuisance was a drastic remedy,
that the city of Portage had never brought an action for
the violation of the ordinance against the defendant and "the
defendant had taken considerable steps to improve the
situation" and was operating a legitimate business
where it had been carried on for many years.
presumption about noise coming from other sources also
contributed to the test preformed was contrary to testimony and
The fact the
defendant has made some efforts to cut down the amount of
noise does not go to the
question of the existence of a nuisance.
may use all the means possible in the operation of a
legitimate business and yet
that operation can cause damage and constitute a nuisance.
the legitimacy of the business nor the length of time
it has been in existence is
controlling in determining whether a public nuisance exists.
factors are relevant to the question of whether the court should
exercise its discretion to enjoin the nuisance.
grants relief, not because the acts are in violation of the
statute, but because they constitute a nuisance.
Violations VS. Public Nuisance
doctrine justifies the issuance of an injunction not to
enforce the criminal statute but to enjoin illegal
conduct which, because of
its repetition, constitutes a nuisance. (When
it becomes a nuisance, then it can be followed by a statute).
to enjoin a nuisance
the (1) amount of
damages caused thereby and upon the application of the
doctrine of the balancing of equities or comparative injury in
which the (2) relative
harm which would be alleviated by the granting of the
injunction is considered in (3)
balance with the harm to the defendant if the injunction
Act VS. Repeated Violations
found that the extent and the nature of the acts and the
resulting damage were most important, not the number of
witnesses, and that the repeated violations of the ordinance
constituted a public nuisance as a matter of law
injunction can only enjoin operations which constitute
violations of the ordinance.
the operations of the defendants from 5PM to 7AM.