Legal Opinion · Dissent

Prah v. Maretti

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 2, 1982No. 81-193Published

1DissentWilliam G. Callow, J.

The majority has adopted the Restatement’s reasonable use doctrine to grant an owner of a solar heated home a cause of action against his neighbor who, in acting entirely within the applicable ordinances and statutes, seeks to design and build his home in such a location that it may, at various times during the day, shade the plaintiff’s solar collector, thereby impeding the efficiency of his heating system1 during several months of the year. Because I believe the facts of this case clearly reveal that a cause of action for private nuisance will not lie, I dissent.

The majority arrives at its…

2Cases cited20 opinions

  1. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
  2. United States v. CausbySupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. Just v. Marinette CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  4. Venuto v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1971
  5. Holifield v. Setco Industries, Inc.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1969

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

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

Powered by the Exa API