The Supreme Court of Texas (SCOTX) agreed that a trial court could issue a permanent injunction as to a temporary nuisance. However, the injunction “shutting down Defendants’ entire operation permanently as its very first remedy” was overly broad. SCOTX sent the case back to the trial court to fashion a new injunction.
Temporary but Recurring Nuisances
At trial, the jury found the nuisance from a chicken farm was temporary because “future injury could not be estimated with reasonable certainty.” In separate findings, the trial judge determined the nuisance, while temporary, “was of a recurring nature” and issued a permanent injunction.
Imminent Harm and Inadequate Remedy
SCOTX held that a permanent injunction was within the trial court’s discretion because 1) defendants did not dispute that nuisance conditions would recur and 2) “multiple and frequent suits” would be “costly” and “inefficient.”
Overly Broad Injunction
The trial court’s injunction was overly broad. The injunction was “punitive in nature” and “broader than necessary to remedy the particular injury.” It imposed “restrictions harsher than the record supports.” (For example, it did not consider if an operation with fewer chickens would avoid nuisances.) Finally, the trial court failed to determine “whether such limits should be imposed equally on Defendants as a whole or distributed according to a defendant-specific balancing of the equities.”
Concurring Opinion
In a concurring opinion, four judges agreed with the result but cautioned against too quickly disregarding jury findings, such as the finding that the injury’s “recurrence would be only occasional, irregular, intermittent, and not reasonably predictable.” Three concurring judges criticized the majority for “failing to clearly direct the trial court to craft an injunction that accords with the Legislature’s policy choices for remedying nuisance-level chicken farm odors, as reflected in the Texas Health and Safety Code and TCEQ regulations.”
For the majority opinion
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458702/210676.pdf
For the concurring opinion
https://www.txcourts.gov/media/1458703/210676c.pdf