Engle v. Clark, Civil 4054
| Decision Date | 29 May 1939 |
| Docket Number | Civil 4054 |
| Citation | 53 Ariz. 472,90 P.2d 994 |
| Parties | FRANK ENGLE and JACK SHOWELL, Doing Business as WESTERN NEWS EXCHANGE, Appellants, v. VERNON L. CLARK, Appellee |
| Court | Arizona Supreme Court |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Maricopa. M. T. Phelps, Judge. Judgment reversed.
Messrs Baker & Whitney and Mr. Lawrence L. Howe, for Appellants.
Mr Leslie C. Hardy, for Appellee.
Vernon L. Clark, a private citizen, hereinafter called plaintiff brought suit against Frank Engle and Jack Showell hereinafter called defendants, doing business as Western News Exchange, and the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company, a corporation, seeking to enjoin defendants from maintaining and carrying on a certain business described in the complaint, and to enjoin the telephone company from furnishing to defendants any telephone or telegraph instrument for the purpose of transmitting information pertaining to that business.
We have just decided the case of Engle and Showell v. State, 90 P.2d 988, ante, p. 458, and under the rule laid down in Stewart v. Phoenix Nat. Bank, 49 Ariz. 34, 64 P.2d 101, take judicial notice of the records in No. 876, supra. We, therefore, know that the business described in the complaint in the present case has been declared by us to be a public nuisance, under section 4693, Revised Code of 1928, but that it does not violate any of the provisions of chapter 104, section 4627 et seq., Revised Code of 1928, which deals with many specified crimes.
The ordinary rule of law is that a public nuisance may not be enjoined at the suit of a private person unless he avers and proves some special injury. Arizona Copper Co., Ltd., v. Gillespie, 12 Ariz. 190, 100 P. 465; 46 C.J. 728, 729, and cases cited. This rule, however, has been modified in many jurisdictions by statutes which allow the private citizen to seek injunctive relief for the purpose of abating certain specified nuisances. Section 4684, of chapter 104, is typical of such statutes, and reads as follows:
Since the business sought to be enjoined does not violate any of the prohibitions of ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd. P'ship, CV-18-0057-PR
...of the public equally [are] handled by public officials" rather than by courts in private litigation. Id. ; see also Engle v. Clark , 53 Ariz. 472, 474, 90 P.2d 994 (1939) (rejecting private citizen’s action to enjoin a previously declared public nuisance because such duty fell on the state......
-
Armory Park Neighborhood Ass'n v. Episcopal Community Services in Arizona
...all members of the public equally should be handled by public officials. RESTATEMENT, supra, § 821C comment a. See also Engle v. Clark, 53 Ariz. 472, 90 P.2d 994 (1939). Considerable disagreement remains over the type of injury which the plaintiff must suffer in order to have standing to br......
-
Hale v. Ostrow, No. W2003-01256-COA-R3-CV (TN 7/13/2004), W2003-01256-COA-R3-CV.
...injury as a result of the nuisance. 66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 65 (1998) (citing Scruggs v. Beason, 20 So.2d 774 (Ala. 1945); Engle v. Clark, 90 P.2d 994 (Ariz. 1939); Akau v. Olohana Corp., 652 P.2d 1130 (Haw. 1982); Irving-Austin Bldg. Corp. v. Village Homebuilders, 37 N.E.2d 927 (Ill. Ct. App......
-
Hopi Tribe v. Ariz. Snowbowl Resort Ltd.
...by public officials. Id. at 5, 712 P.2d at 918 (citing Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821C cmt. a (1979), and Engle v. Clark , 53 Ariz. 472, 473–74, 90 P.2d 994, 995 (1939) ). In the present case, the parties do not dispute the sufficiency of the Tribe's allegations that reclaimed wastewat......