Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rassier v. Houim

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 19, 1992No. Civ. 910402Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMeschke, Justice

I agree with much of what Justice VandeWalle writes for the majority to dispel confusion and to clarify the law of private nuisance. The majority correctly states that, under NDCC 42-01-01, there is an absolute duty not to act in a way that unreasonably interferes with the use and enjoyment of the property of other persons.

That absolute duty is not dependent on violation of any other express law, ordinance, or regulation. Justice VandeWalle’s analysis thus demonstrates that the trial court’s conclusion, that “[njothing in [the] operation (noise) [of Houim’s wind turbine] is in violation of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Jerry Harmon Motors, Inc. v. Farmers Union Grain Terminal Ass'nNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1983
  2. Kolstad v. RankinAppellate Court of Illinois · 1989
  3. Rose v. ChaikinNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1982
  4. Wade v. FullerUtah Supreme Court · 1961
  5. McQuade v. Tucson Tiller Apartments, Ltd.Court of Appeals of Arizona · 1975

2 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