Legal Opinion
Maykut v. Plasko
Supreme Court of Connecticut
Decided March 9, 1976PublishedCited by 14 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtLongo, J.
The defendants, Martin and Mary Plasko, own a twenty-eight acre farm in Trumbull, a portion of which they used to raise corn. To reduce damage to their ripening corn caused by marauding birds, from time to time they used a mechanical noisemaking device known as a “corn cannon” which emitted a noise like a gunshot or explosion. They operated it from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and the device sounded at about five-minute intervals. The plaintiff lives in a residence located about 600 feet from the defendants’ land, in one of the densely populated areas which border the farm on three sides. The plaintiff…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Ravitch v. Stollman Poultry Farms, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1973
- Nailor v. C. W. Blakeslee & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1933
- Sisters of St. Joseph Corp. v. Atlas Sand, Gravel & Stone Co.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1935
- Nair v. ThawSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1968
- Herbert v. SmythSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1967
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- Pestey v. CushmanSupreme Court of Connecticut · 2002
- Tomasso Bros. v. October Twenty-Four, Inc.Supreme Court of Connecticut · 1994
- Walsh v. Town of Stonington Water Pollution Control AuthoritySupreme Court of Connecticut · 1999
- Caltabiano v. PhillipsConnecticut Appellate Court · 1990
- Douglas v. Warden, State PrisonSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1991
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.