Sowers v. Forest Hills Subdivision
294 P.3d 427
Nev.2013Background
- Respondents Halls sought a permanent injunction to stop neighbor Sowers from building a wind turbine on his residential property.
- District court granted the injunction after finding the turbine would interfere with residents’ use and enjoyment of their property.
- Evidence showed Forest Hills Subdivision as quiet, with residents fearing noise, shadow flicker, and view obstruction.
- Testimony included a realtor’s claim that property values would decline, a renewable-energy expert’s noise comparison to highway hum, and a contractor’s assertion that shadow flicker cannot be mitigated.
- A site visit to a comparable turbine and a district-court observation of turbine size influenced the court’s assessment.
- The court ultimately held the turbine would constitute a nuisance in fact and granted a permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the turbine is a nuisance in fact under the facts presented | Halls argue the turbine interferes with use and enjoyment via noise, shadow flicker, and diminished values | Sowers contends turbines are not per se nuisances and may be allowed | Yes; nuisance in fact supported by noise, shadow flicker, and value concerns |
| Whether aesthetics alone can support a nuisance finding | Aesthetics contribute to nuisance | Aesthetics alone are insufficient to prove nuisance | Aesthetics alone cannot establish nuisance; may be considered with other factors |
| Whether the injunction was properly issued under NRCP 65(d) | District court should have stated explicit reasons in the order | Lack of facial statement does not invalidate injunction if reasons are clear in record | Injunction proper; reasons readily apparent in the record and reviewable |
| Whether the wind turbine’s utility outweighs the harms to the community | Renewable energy benefit favored; harms to subdivision outweigh utility | Utility supports the turbine for the owner and public policy favors renewables | Utility outweighed by potential harms to the Forest Hills subdivision; nuisance in fact supporting injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Burch v. Nedpower Mount Storm, LLC, 647 S.E.2d 879 (W. Va. 2007) (nuisance by unreasonable conduct; balancing harm and utility in locality)
- Rose v. Chaikin, 453 A.2d 1378 (N.J. Super. Ct. Ch. Div. 1982) (noise in a quiet neighborhood can amount to nuisance)
- Probasco v. City of Reno, 85 Nev. 563, 459 P.2d 772 (Nev. 1969) (landowner lacks right to light, air, or view; balancing factors for nuisance)