Carroll v. Absolute Tank Removal, LLC
Connecticut Superior Court
1Opinion of the CourtBlue, J.
Perhaps more than any other common-law cause of action, the tort of private nuisance eludes exact definition. A nineteenth century English judge observed that the “cause of action is immersed in undefined uncertainty.” Brand v. Hammersmith & City Railway Co., L.R. 1867 2 Q.B. 223, 247 (Ex. Ch. 1867). More recently, our Supreme Court referred to the law as an “impenetrable jungle . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Pestey v. Cushman, 259 Conn. 345, 355, 788 A.2d 496 (2002). Pestey clarifies the law of private nuisance considerably but sends conflicting signals on the question now…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Donald v. Amoco Production Co.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1999
- Philadelphia Electric Company v. Hercules, Inc. And Gould, Inc. Appeal of Hercules, IncCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1985
- Rosenblatt v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1994
- Mangini v. Aerojet-General Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1991
- Adkins v. Thomas Solvent Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1992
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Collins v. Olin Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2006
- Coe v. Cross-Lines Retirement Center, Inc.District Court, D. Kansas · 2022