Goeke v. National Farms, Inc.
Decision Date | 04 March 1994 |
Docket Number | No. S-92-210,S-92-210 |
Citation | 512 N.W.2d 626,245 Neb. 262 |
Parties | Roy GOEKE and Pat Goeke, Husband and Wife, et al., Appellees, v. NATIONAL FARMS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, doing business as National Farm Products, and O.N. Corporation, a Nebraska Corporation, Appellants. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Actions: Injunction: Equity. An action for an injunction sounds in equity.
2. Equity: Appeal and Error. In an appeal of an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court, provided, when credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another.
3. Appeal and Error. An appellate court has an obligation to reach its own independent conclusions as to questions of law.
4. Nuisances: Injunction: Parties: Joinder. Multiple plaintiffs may join in one suit to enjoin a nuisance so long as the alleged nuisance interferes with the rights of each plaintiff joined.
5. Appeal and Error. Absent prejudice of a party's substantial rights, an appellate court may disregard procedural errors committed by a trial court.
6. Records: Proof: Appeal and Error. Prejudicial error must appear affirmatively in the record, and the party appealing from the judgment has the burden of showing prejudice.
7. Damages: Appeal and Error. When questions of fact involve the assessment of money damages, an appellate court will not set aside such judgment if it is within the range of the evidence and is not arbitrary.
8. Courts: Judgments: Judicial Notice. When cases are interwoven and interdependent and a controversy has already been considered and determined in a prior proceeding involving one of the parties now before the court, the court has the right to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgment in the prior action.
9. Nuisances. To justify the abatement of a claimed nuisance, the annoyance must be such as to cause actual physical discomfort to one of ordinary sensibilities.
10. Nuisances: Presumptions. There is a presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that a plaintiff in an action for abatement of a nuisance has ordinary sensibilities.
11. Equity: Jurisdiction. When an equity court has properly acquired jurisdiction in a suit for equitable relief, it will make a complete adjudication of all matters properly presented and involved in the case and ordinarily will grant such relief, legal or equitable, as may be required and thus avoid unnecessary litigation.
12. Verdicts: Appeal and Error. A verdict will not be set aside on appeal unless it is so clearly exorbitant as to indicate that it was the result of passion, prejudice, or mistake, or it is clear that the trier of fact disregarded the evidence or rules of law.
13. Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. A district court's denial of a motion for new trial will be affirmed when the court's decision is neither prejudicial nor an abuse of discretion.
David A. Domina and Cletus W. Blakeman, of Domina & Copple, P.C., Omaha, for appellants.
Steven D. Burns and Jeffrey S. Schmidt, of Burns & Associates, Lincoln, for appellees.
National Farms, Inc., and its wholly owned subsidiary, O.N. Corporation, appeal a district court's ruling that offensive odors from the appellants' swine-raising facility created a nuisance and that the plaintiffs were entitled to an injunction and monetary damages.
Although the plaintiffs-appellees were misjoined in their claim for monetary relief, the misjoinder did not prejudice the appellants.
We affirm the injunction and damage awards entered by the district court for Holt County.
Summarized and restated, the appellants' assigned errors are that the district court erred in (1) allowing multiple plaintiffs to join in one suit; (2) finding the appellants' swine-raising facility to be a nuisance; (3) refusing to admit certain evidence, including testimony as to the economic and social benefits provided by the appellants' facility; (4) receiving evidence about the appellants' operations in Colorado; (5) rendering a judgment affected by the court's own prejudices; (6) granting an injunction and awarding monetary damages; (7) failing to apply a different standard and burden of proof in adjudicating the plaintiffs' claim for damages; (8) imposing excessive damages; (9) overruling the appellants' motion for new trial; and (10) refusing to set a supersedeas bond during appeal.
An action for an injunction sounds in equity. County of Dakota v. Worldwide Truck Parts & Metals, 245 Neb. 196, 511 N.W.2d 769 (1994). In an appeal of an equity action, an appellate court tries factual questions de novo on the record and reaches a conclusion independent of the findings of the trial court, provided, when credible evidence is in conflict on a material issue of fact, the appellate court considers and may give weight to the fact that the trial judge heard and observed the witnesses and accepted one version of the facts rather than another. See Lange Indus. v. Hallam Grain Co., 244 Neb. 465, 507 N.W.2d 465 (1993).
An appellate court has an obligation to reach its own independent conclusions as to questions of law. Drew v. Walkup, 240 Neb. 946, 486 N.W.2d 187 (1992); State v. Melcher, 240 Neb. 592, 483 N.W.2d 540 (1992).
During the relevant times involved in this case, the appellants operated a swine-raising facility east of Atkinson which housed some 80,000 to 85,000 head of swine. After another couple sued the appellants because of offensive odors emanating from the swine-raising facility, Kaup v. National Farms Inc., and O.N. Corporation, Holt County District Court, case No. 18235, see Kopecky v. National Farms, Inc., 244 Neb. 846, 510 N.W.2d 41 (1994), the plaintiffs, three married couples and two widows, filed a petition seeking an injunction to prevent the appellants from continuing to produce the offensive odors. The plaintiffs were given leave to amend their petition to also request monetary damages.
One couple, Roy and Pat Goeke, lived about 3 1/2 miles north of the appellants' facility until they moved to Atkinson in April 1989. Roy Goeke testified at trial in the fall of 1991 that he was still working on or near his property. At the time of trial, the second couple, Donald and Angela Marcellus, still lived 3 1/2 to 4 miles northeast of the appellants' facility; Jayme N. and Connie J. Seger lived about 2 1/2 miles north of the facility; Helen L. Seger, Jayme's mother, lived half a mile north of her son and daughter-in-law; and Lavern A. Sicheneder lived 2 1/2 miles east of the facility.
In their petition, the above-named plaintiffs claimed that the appellants' waste-treatment system was inadequate to prevent offensive odors from interfering with the use and enjoyment of their property. The evidence reflects that the appellants' swine operation's waste-treatment system consisted of screening and separating solid from liquid waste, spreading the solid waste over adjacent fields owned by the appellants, and pumping the liquid waste into lagoons from which it was eventually disposed of through a center-pivot irrigation system on the appellants' surrounding ground.
The appellants demurred to the plaintiffs' second amended petition, claiming that the petition misjoined plaintiffs, misjoined causes of action, and failed to allege sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action. The district court overruled the appellants' demurrer.
After a trial, the district court found that the appellants' waste-treatment operation created a nuisance and enjoined the appellants from producing the offensive odors. The court directed the appellants either to cease operating their facility or to take prompt and reasonable steps to abate the odors. The trial court also awarded each couple $75,000 and each widow $37,500 in damages.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-311 (Reissue 1989) provides that "[a]ll persons having an interest in the subject of the action, and in obtaining the relief demanded, may be joined as plaintiffs...." Thus, multiple plaintiffs may join in one suit to enjoin a nuisance so long as the alleged nuisance interferes with the rights of each plaintiff joined. See, City of Le Mars v. Fisch, 251 Iowa 149, 100 N.W.2d 14 (1959); J.N. Griffith v. Jake Hurt, 200 Tenn. 133, 291 S.W.2d 271 (1956); Mutual Service Funeral Homes v. Fehler, 257 Ala. 354, 58 So.2d 770 (1952); Bajorek v. Kurtz, 335 Mich. 58, 55 N.W.2d 727 (1952). See, also, 58 Am.Jur.2d Nuisances § 387 (1989); 66 C.J.S. Nuisances § 124 (1950).
In the case under consideration, each plaintiff possessed the right to enjoy and use his or her own property free from offensive odors, and each plaintiff established at trial that the appellants' waste-treatment system had interfered with that right. Hence, all the plaintiffs had an interest in the subject of the action, i.e., the alleged nuisance created by the appellants' waste-treatment system. In addition, all the plaintiffs had an interest in obtaining the equitable relief demanded, that is, an injunction against the appellants' continued interference with their rights. Consequently, the plaintiffs were properly joined in an action against the appellants for an injunction.
In their second amended petition, the plaintiffs also sought monetary damages. It is in this aspect of the lawsuit that we find a misjoinder. Because any one plaintiff would have no interest in the monetary relief demanded by each of the others, as required by § 25-311, the plaintiffs were misjoined as to their demand for monetary damages. See, also, Griffith,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Williams
...to examine its own records and take judicial notice of its own proceedings and judgment in the prior action. Goeke v. National Farms, Inc., 245 Neb. 262, 512 N.W.2d 626 (1994); State v. Meis, 233 Neb. 355, 445 N.W.2d 610 (1989), overruled on other grounds, State v. Stewart, 242 Neb. 712, 49......
-
Boyles v. Hausmann
...court is obligated to reach its conclusions independent of the determinations of the trial court. How, supra; Goeke v. National Farms, Inc., 245 Neb. 262, 512 N.W.2d 626 (1994); National Am. Ins. Co. v. Continental Western Ins. Co., 243 Neb. 766, 502 N.W.2d 817 (1993); Drew, supra; State Bd......
-
State ex rel. Cherry v. Burns
...as may be required and thus avoid unnecessary litigation. E.g., Dillon Tire, Inc., supra; Synacek, supra; Goeke v. National Farms, Inc., 245 Neb. 262, 512 N.W.2d 626 (1994); Allen v. AT & T Technologies, 228 Neb. 503, 423 N.W.2d 424 (1988); Ames v. Ames, 75 Neb. 473, 106 N.W. 584 A review o......
-
Adt Sec. Services v. A/C Sec. Systems, Inc.
...conclusion reached by the trial court. Channer v. Cumming, 270 Neb. 231, 699 N.W.2d 831 (2005). We take note of Goeke v. National Farms, Inc., 245 Neb. 262, 512 N.W.2d 626 (1994), a case in which landowners brought a nuisance action seeking both injunctive relief and monetary damages agains......