Legal Opinion

Dorsett v. Nunis

Supreme Court of Georgia

Decided February 12, 1941No. 13468PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Reid, Chief Justice.

(After stating the foregoing facts.) It should be first observed that the ill health and unusual sensitiveness of some of the plaintiffs to noise has no relevancy in the controversy. In the determination of whether a given state of facts discloses a nuisance, the general effect of the condition shown on an ordinary person, rather than one of abnormal sensibilities and feelings, is the proper consideration. This is apparent from the definition of a nuisance as contained in the Code, § 72-101, where it is provided that “The inconvenience complained of shall not be fanciful,…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Bacon v. WalkerSupreme Court of Georgia · 1886
  2. Standard Oil Co. v. KahnSupreme Court of Georgia · 1928
  3. Warren Company v. DicksonSupreme Court of Georgia · 1938
  4. Rounsaville v. KohlheimSupreme Court of Georgia · 1882
  5. Richmond Cotton Oil Co. v. CastellawSupreme Court of Georgia · 1910

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Heppenstall Co. v. Berkshire Chemical Co.Connecticut Superior Court · 1942

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API