Trusted by Students Everywhere
Why Choose Us?
0% AI Guarantee

Human-written only.

24/7 Support

Anytime, anywhere.

Plagiarism Free

100% Original.

Expert Tutors

Masters & PhDs.

100% Confidential

Your privacy matters.

On-Time Delivery

Never miss a deadline.

Week 6 - Valasek v Baer Discussion - Week 6 Group 3 From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020) If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion

Communications Nov 12, 2020

Week 6 - Valasek v Baer Discussion - Week 6 Group 3

From AGRICULTURAL LAW (AEC_388_400_F2020)

If you have signed up to do this case brief for homework, please start out the thread: Give us the key facts, issue, rule, holding, and even briefer reasoning from your brief to start the discussion.

DO NOT simply copy or attach your brief. Condense the brief into its essentials to teach your classmates.

If another classmate has already posted, feel free to respond with alternative understanding of the case and try to work it out. That’s the BEST learning! I will chime in with clarification if necessary.

Expert Solution

In the case of Valasek v. Baer (1987), plaintiff(s) are neighboring property owners seeking to enjoin a third neighbor, Richard Baer from spreading waste from his hog farmland to nearby properties. The defendant (Baer) owns roughly 400 acres, both on the west and east side of Blacktop Road. The plaintiffs argues that the spending of the manure was done several times a year, creating “highly obnoxious odors” that last from several days to weeks. The plaintiffs described the odor as “nauseating”, “pungent”, “sickening”, “worse than pig manure.” The district court found that Baer’s manure spread on the portion of property near the plaintiff’s homes did in fact constitute a nuisance, in which the court of appeals confirmed. Because the defendants hog operation was a lawful business and carried in ordinance, the standards did not suit a nuisance. The Iowa Supreme Court found that the plaintiff’s injunction was excessive. The defendant will be allowed to continue his hog operation and speeding of manure with respective limitations to the plaintiff’s properties.

In my opinion, both arguments in this case were seemingly justified. The plaintiffs argument for the scent disturbance surrounding their properties would be enough to cause an upset. The defendant though is well within his rights to continue his manure operation. The final decision from the Iowa Supreme Court found the injunction of the plaintiffs to be both appropriate but excessive. Reaching a compromised decision that serves both parties favorably, I find this case to be just.

Archived Solution
Unlocked Solution

You have full access to this solution. To save a copy with all formatting and attachments, use the button below.

Already a member? Sign In
Important Note: This solution is from our archive and has been purchased by others. Submitting it as-is may trigger plagiarism detection. Use it for reference only.

For ready-to-submit work, please order a fresh solution below.

Or get 100% fresh solution
Get Custom Quote
Secure Payment