Mike Clifford Posted October 3, 2008 Report Share Posted October 3, 2008 Status of case, following hearings this week is this: "Judge ruled plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for “private nuisance” at close of our evidence, in response to defense motion for a directed finding. That obligated the defense to present their evidence, which is where we are now. See Court Clerk’s notes re motion for directed finding denied." http://www.judici.com/courts/cases/case_hi...015JL2008CH42D1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kast Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Ok, I read it, and have no idea what any of it means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Ok, I read it, and have no idea what any of it means. It means that Nack (def) made a motion at the end of the presentation of the plaintiffs' case that the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence to get relief and the judge denied the motion - it's a good ruling for the plaintiffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Kast Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Thanks for the explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredmo Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Is there somewhere else, besides reading the court file, where this case is discussed? I didn't realize anything had been filed. It sounds as if a nuisance theory is being used, seeking some kind of injunction, right? We had tried a similar tactic at the Bellflower, IL dairy to try to stop it. Different kind of area, and I'm not hearing a lot of complaints now that that dairy has been up and going for a while. Fortunately, there have been no know escapes from the ponds used to collect the animal waste, so as far as I know, disaster has been avoided there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Clifford Posted October 4, 2008 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Is there somewhere else, besides reading the court file, where this case is discussed? I didn't realize anything had been filed. It sounds as if a nuisance theory is being used, seeking some kind of injunction, right? We had tried a similar tactic at the Bellflower, IL dairy to try to stop it. Different kind of area, and I'm not hearing a lot of complaints now that that dairy has been up and going for a while. Fortunately, there have been no know escapes from the ponds used to collect the animal waste, so as far as I know, disaster has been avoided there. It is likely being discussed in local newspapers in the area. This is very big news to the residents of the region. Legal strategies are discussed privately and in conference calls, understandably. I remember you pointing out the Bellflower farm in the past and was able to learn the same thing again with this case, with the nuisance card strategy in seeking an injunction. I'm glad to hear that the Bellflower seems to be a good neighbor so far, but statistics tell us it likely won't last. We may find ourselves making that determination before long, if there is a river or stream nearby. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jude Posted October 4, 2008 Report Share Posted October 4, 2008 Thanks for the update, Mike. Sounds like positive news. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.