Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Public nuisance

Public nuisance is a common law doctrine encompassing any act or condition that unreasonably interferes with a right common to the general public, such as the enjoyment of public health, safety, property, or conveniences like highways and waterways.^[1]^[2] Originating in medieval English law as a criminal offense prosecutable by the Crown for threats to communal order—such as obstructing streets or spreading disease—it evolved to permit civil remedies including abatement by public authorities or damages for individuals suffering special harm beyond the general public.^[3]^[4] Unlike private nuisance, which protects individual property interests against localized disturbances like excessive neighbor noise, public nuisance targets broader societal harms affecting an indefinite class of people, with enforcement typically reserved to government entities unless a plaintiff proves distinct injury.^[5]^[6] Historically applied to tangible threats like pollution from factories fouling shared waters or unsafe public gatherings, the doctrine emphasizes causal links between the defendant's conduct and widespread detriment, demanding proof of unreasonableness weighed against public utility.^[7]^[8] Courts have upheld injunctions against such interferences, as in early cases involving urban filth or industrial emissions endangering community welfare, while rejecting overly speculative claims.^[9] In contemporary use, attempts to expand public nuisance to mass harms—like opioid distribution or climate emissions—have met judicial resistance, with rulings stressing doctrinal boundaries to prevent it from supplanting specialized statutes or product liability regimes, preserving its focus on localized, abatable conditions rather than remote economic losses.^[10]^[11] This restraint underscores the doctrine's foundational role in balancing individual enterprise against collective rights through empirical assessment of harm's scope and preventability.^[12]

Definition and Legal Elements

Core Definition

A public nuisance is an act, omission, or condition that constitutes an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public.^[2]^[10] This foundational common law concept targets disruptions to shared communal interests, such as the free passage along highways, the preservation of public health and safety, or the general comfort of the populace in exercising ordinary rights.^[4]^[1] At its core, public nuisance protects collective entitlements rather than discrete private injuries, addressing harms that extend beyond any single individual to affect an indeterminate number of people within a community.^[13]^[14] Classic instances include the erection of barriers obstructing public roads, thereby impeding general travel, or the discharge of pollutants into waterways relied upon by the public for sustenance or recreation.^[5]^[15] The doctrine exhibits a dual character, functioning as either a criminal offense prosecutable by the state for endangering public welfare or as a civil remedy enforceable by government authorities on behalf of the community, with limited standing extended to private parties only upon demonstration of particular injury distinct from the general harm.^[15]^[13] This bifurcated approach underscores its role in upholding societal order through both penal deterrence and equitable abatement of pervasive threats.^[16]

Required Elements for Liability

To establish liability for public nuisance under common law principles, a plaintiff must prove an unreasonable and substantial interference with a right common to the general public, caused by the defendant's conduct.^[5] This formulation, drawn from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B, requires demonstration of a public right—such as access to navigable waters, highways, or unpolluted air—verifiably impaired by empirical evidence like measured obstructions or contaminant levels exceeding safe thresholds.^[17]^[16] The interference qualifies as substantial only if it impacts a considerable number of persons or the public at large, distinguishing it from isolated or trivial effects that do not rise to actionable harm.^[18] Courts assess this threshold empirically, rejecting claims based solely on subjective discomfort without evidence of widespread disruption.^[19] Unreasonableness is evaluated through a balancing test comparing the social utility of the defendant's activity against the harm's severity, prioritizing causal evidence of tangible injury over mere moral offense or de minimis annoyance.^[20] Relevant factors include the interference's duration, frequency, probability of occurrence, and availability of less harmful alternatives, with liability imposing strict accountability where the conduct foreseeably generates the nuisance condition.^[21] Defendants incur liability as creators of the nuisance—through intentional acts or omissions in a duty owed—or as maintainers who continue the condition after acquiring knowledge of its effects or where harm was reasonably foreseeable.^[22] This extends to those who fail to abate verifiable public harms within their control, ensuring causal responsibility aligns with evidentiary standards rather than attenuated associations.^[23]

Historical Development

Origins in English Common Law

The doctrine of public nuisance emerged in 13th-century English common law as a criminal writ primarily addressing tangible obstructions to public rights, such as blockages of highways and encroachments on common lands documented in early assize and eyre records. These proceedings, conducted by itinerant justices under royal authority, treated such interferences as offenses against the Crown's prerogative to preserve communal access and resources, often resulting in abatement orders or fines rather than private remedies. By the early 14th century, cases had expanded slightly to include nuisances like lime-kilns emitting smoke that harmed public markets or thoroughfares, reflecting a focus on direct, physical impediments affecting the realm's economic and social functioning.^[3]^[24] In the 16th century, the doctrine's application remained centered on abating concrete threats to public welfare, including dams or weirs that impeded river navigation or fisheries, which were prosecutable as common nuisances under common law principles reinforced by statutes like the 1531 Statute of Sewers addressing watercourse obstructions. Judicial records from this era, such as those cited in Anthony Fitzherbert's La Graunde Abridgement (1516, with updates), affirmed that highway obstructions constituted a public nuisance, allowing for indictment and removal even if a private party suffered injury therefrom. This narrow scope prioritized empirical harms verifiable through local presentments, avoiding abstract or intangible annoyances.^[25] Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–1769) synthesized and formalized these precedents, defining public nuisance as "any thing that worketh hurt, inconvenience, or damage" to the community at large, punishable as an indictable misdemeanor when it interfered with collective rights to life, health, property, or safe passage. Blackstone emphasized its criminal character, prosecutable by the state via indictment for abatement, underscoring the doctrine's roots in protecting public order from verifiable encroachments rather than individual grievances.^[26]

Evolution in the United States and Commonwealth

In the United States, following independence, state courts incorporated the English common law doctrine of public nuisance into domestic jurisprudence, adapting it to address interferences with public rights such as highways, navigable waters, and air quality, primarily through abatement actions rather than expansive damages.^[3] This adoption emphasized criminal enforcement for offenses against the state, with civil suits limited to those suffering special damages beyond the general public.^[3] By the early 19th century, courts applied the doctrine to emerging urban issues, but significant expansion occurred amid industrialization, where factories emitting dense smoke were deemed public nuisances interfering with public health and comfort.^[27] The late 19th century saw a surge in smoke abatement cases, particularly in industrial cities like Chicago, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis, where courts balanced economic utility against empirical evidence of harm, such as respiratory illnesses and reduced visibility, often ordering injunctions for abatement over monetary penalties.^[28] For instance, in rulings from the 1880s to 1900s, judges weighed the defendant's investment in coal-burning operations against documented public detriment, retaining a focus on cessation of the offending activity rather than compensation, which preserved the doctrine's roots in preventing ongoing threats.^[29] This period marked a shift toward broader application to environmental interferences, yet courts resisted theories detached from tangible, localized impacts, prioritizing first-hand proof of unreasonable interference over speculative or widespread claims.^[30] In Commonwealth jurisdictions outside the United Kingdom, such as Australia, the doctrine evolved through retention of common law principles post-federation in 1901, supplemented by state-level codifications in summary offences and local government acts that targeted verifiable harms like sanitation failures and pollution.^[31] These post-1900 enactments, including health regulations in states like New South Wales and Queensland, shifted emphasis toward empirical assessments of public inconvenience—such as obstruction or health risks—over subjective moral evaluations, enabling prosecutions for disorderly conduct or environmental degradation backed by observable evidence. This adaptation maintained abatement as a core remedy while incorporating statutory precision to address industrial growth, though broader civil expansions faced judicial caution to avoid diluting the requirement for widespread, non-particularized injury.^[3] The American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Torts in 1979 further influenced these systems by articulating public nuisance as an unreasonable interference with rights common to the general public, reinforcing elements of public right and substantial harm across jurisdictions.^[11]

Distinction from Private Nuisance

Fundamental Differences in Scope and Standing

Public nuisance is characterized by an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, such as the use of public highways, navigable waters, or air quality impacting a substantial portion of the community, thereby distinguishing it from private nuisance, which constitutes a nontrespassory invasion of an individual's exclusive interest in the private use and enjoyment of land.^[10]^[32] This broader scope in public nuisance targets harms affecting an indeterminate class of persons or a public right, often involving localized but collective disruptions like industrial emissions contaminating shared water sources, rather than individualized property encroachments central to private claims.^[33] In terms of standing, public nuisance claims are predominantly pursued by governmental entities, such as state attorneys general representing the sovereign interest in protecting communal rights, reflecting the doctrine's emphasis on public enforcement to avoid multiplicity of suits from diffuse victims.^[34] By contrast, private nuisance affords standing to any landowner directly experiencing the interference, without necessitating representation of broader societal interests, as the harm is tethered to specific possessory rights in real property.^[35] This governmental primacy in public nuisance ensures that prosecutions prioritize verifiable, collective impacts over isolated grievances, aligning with principles of efficient adjudication for widespread causal chains.^[32] Liability under public nuisance further demands rigorous demonstration of generalized harm through objective indicators, such as epidemiological data linking environmental releases to elevated public health risks—for instance, particulate matter concentrations exceeding safe thresholds correlated with respiratory illness rates in affected populations—whereas private nuisance relies on a subjective balancing of the interference's severity against the defendant's utility, often assessed via locality-specific norms without mandatory quantitative thresholds.^[36] This evidentiary disparity underscores public nuisance's orientation toward empirically substantiated causal effects on public welfare, mitigating risks of overreach in claims lacking aggregate proof, in opposition to private nuisance's tolerance for perceptual harms like noise or odors deemed unreasonable in context.^[10]^[33]

Exceptions and Overlaps

In common law systems, private parties may assert claims under public nuisance doctrine upon establishing special injury, defined as harm distinct in kind from the general inconvenience borne by the public, rather than merely differing in degree.^[3] This standing exception, traceable to 16th-century English precedents and codified in American jurisprudence by the early 19th century, permits recovery for quantifiable personal losses, such as direct economic impairment from obstructed access to one's business premises or targeted property degradation from localized pollution spillover.^[37] The rule's rationale centers on curbing judicial overload from duplicative suits, preserving the primacy of state-led abatement while enabling targeted private redress where causal links to individual detriment are empirically demonstrable.^[3] Overlaps arise in hybrid nuisances where conduct simultaneously violates collective public rights—such as health or navigation—and inflicts separable private harms, exemplified by factory emissions that broadly contaminate air resources while eroding adjacent landowners' property values through particulate deposition.^[11] Here, public nuisance frameworks emphasize systemic remedies like injunctions to halt ongoing collective exposure, subordinating individualized compensation to avoid diluting enforcement against diffuse impacts; private claims, by contrast, quantify specific causal chains to affected parcels.^[11] Such boundary cases underscore causal realism in adjudication, requiring plaintiffs to disaggregate public-scale interference from proprietary invasions without conflating remedies. Judicial delineation employs tests centered on the infringed interest's public character and extent of victimization; public classification predominates when interference affects a "considerable number" of persons or an entire community, as opposed to localized land-use encroachments.^[11] This numerosity criterion, drawn from statutory codifications like California Civil Code § 3480, mitigates forum-shopping incentives by channeling widespread grievances toward unified public actions, thereby aligning liability with the scale of empirically verifiable harm and forestalling inefficient private proliferation.^[11]

Jurisdictional Variations

In the United Kingdom

In the United Kingdom, public nuisance operates through a hybrid of residual common law tort principles and statutory provisions, with the common law criminal offence abolished effective 28 June 2022 by section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which codified it into a new statutory offence punishable by up to 10 years' imprisonment.^[38]^[39] The statutory offence targets acts done intentionally or recklessly that interfere with public use or enjoyment of a place or obstruct a public right of way, where the perpetrator foresees or is reckless as to causing serious harm, distress, annoyance, inconvenience, or loss to the public.^[4] This framework prioritizes demonstrable interference with public rights, such as highway obstructions, over subjective moral objections, requiring prosecutors to prove objective risks or actual harms like traffic delays measured in hours or economic losses quantified in millions.^[40] Common law tort claims for public nuisance persist, actionable civilly by the Attorney General or by individuals proving special damage beyond general public inconvenience, as in cases of highway blockages where plaintiffs demonstrate quantifiable personal losses from impeded access.^[41] Classic examples include wilful obstructions of highways without lawful excuse, prosecutable under section 137 of the Highways Act 1980 as a summary offence with fines up to level 3 on the standard scale, or elevated to public nuisance where widespread public rights are affected.^[42] Courts assess such interferences based on their scale and duration, rejecting claims absent evidence of substantial impediment, as affirmed in precedents requiring proof of danger or unreasonable hindrance to public passage.^[43] Statutory nuisances under Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 supplement this, empowering local authorities to investigate and abate issues like emissions of smoke, dust, noise, or odours from premises that are "prejudicial to health or a nuisance," with enforcement via abatement notices backed by magistrates' court orders and potential fines up to £20,000 for non-compliance in England.^[44]^[45] Liability hinges on empirical assessments, such as noise levels exceeding 34 decibels at night or particulate measurements indicating health risks, rather than unverified complaints, with authorities obligated to inspect periodically and gather data before acting.^[46]^[47] Post-2022 applications of the new public nuisance offence, particularly in protest-related cases from 2023 onward, underscore a judicial emphasis on verifiable public impacts over ideological or moral assertions, with convictions upheld for actions causing measurable disruptions like 51-hour motorway closures resulting in £1.2 million in policing costs, while sentencing guidelines weigh actual harm against claimed motives without mitigation for conscientious objections alone.^[48]^[39] This approach aligns with evidentiary standards favoring data on health effects or economic detriment, as seen in upheld charges against groups blocking infrastructure where courts dismissed defenses predicated on abstract ethical imperatives absent proof of negligible public burden.^[38]

In the United States

In the United States, public nuisance liability is primarily governed by state common law, with definitions varying across jurisdictions but often incorporating elements from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 821B (1979), which characterizes it as an unreasonable interference with a public right, such as use of public land, water, or health and safety.^[20]^[16] States like California and New York codify or expand on these principles through statutes or case law, requiring proof of substantial interference affecting the public at large, while others, such as Texas, emphasize criminal over civil applications unless special injury is shown for private standing.^[49] Federal courts, applying state law in diversity cases, impose constraints under the Commerce Clause, displacing state public nuisance claims where they regulate interstate commerce or conflict with federal statutes like the Clean Air Act, as seen in dismissals of nationwide emissions suits for lacking proximate causation or intruding on executive/legislative domains.^[50]^[51] Litigation has expanded in the 2010s and 2020s to address mass harms, with state attorneys general and municipalities invoking public nuisance against industries for distributed risks rather than localized acts. In the opioid crisis, over 40 states filed suits against manufacturers and distributors, alleging marketing and oversupply created a public health interference; these yielded settlements exceeding $50 billion by 2022, including a $26 billion multistate agreement with Johnson & Johnson and retailers in 2021, though critics note funds often prioritized abatement over proven causation.^[52]^[53] Gun violence suits proliferated in the 2020s, with cities like Baltimore and Gary, Indiana, targeting manufacturers for allegedly defective designs enabling crime, leading to over 40 filings; New York's 2021 law facilitating such claims was upheld by the Second Circuit in July 2025, but federal protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) prompted dismissals in cases lacking direct control over misuse.^[54]^[55] Climate-related actions by states and cities, such as Hawaii's 2017 suit against fossil fuel producers, recast greenhouse gas emissions as a public nuisance interfering with coastal resources, with the Supreme Court remanding 11 cases to state courts in 2023 after rejecting federal preemption arguments.^[56]^[57] Empirical outcomes reveal high dismissal rates for these expansive claims, often on grounds of attenuated proximate cause—where intervening factors like consumer behavior break the chain—or separation of powers violations, as courts deem statewide policy harms legislative territory. In opioid litigation, a West Virginia trial court dismissed hospital claims in 2023 for failing to localize the "nuisance" beyond regulatory failures, reaffirming that abatement targets discrete interferences, not systemic crises.^[58] Gun suits faced similar fates, with a 2024 Indiana federal court granting judgment against Gary's claims for insufficient manufacturer foreseeability of criminal diversion.^[59] Climate cases, including Bucks County's 2024 Pennsylvania filing, were dismissed in 2025 for non-justiciable political questions and causation gaps, underscoring judicial reluctance to redistribute trillions in abatement costs absent legislative action.^[60]^[61] These rulings highlight tensions between traditional localized doctrine and novel applications seeking damages for diffuse harms.

In Australia and Other Commonwealth Nations

In Australia, public nuisance at common law involves an act or omission that materially interferes with the reasonable comfort and convenience of the life of a class of Her Majesty's subjects who come within the sphere or neighbourhood of its operation, distinct from private nuisance by requiring harm to a public right rather than individual property interests.^[62] Civil claims demand proof of special damage to confer standing on a private plaintiff, emphasizing widespread impact over localized grievances.^[63] Post-federation, state legislatures have supplemented common law through statutory offenses, such as section 6 of Queensland's Summary Offences Act 2005, which criminalizes disorderly, offensive, or violent behavior in public places that obstructs or interferes with public passage or enjoyment.^[64] Similarly, Victoria's Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (section 61) addresses nuisances affecting public health, including environmental issues like excessive noise or waste, but mandates evidence of community-wide prejudice rather than isolated complaints.^[65] The High Court of Australia has clarified constitutional boundaries in public nuisance enforcement, as in Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1, where a majority upheld the validity of Queensland's former vagrancy provisions (encompassing public nuisance elements) against challenges under the implied freedom of political communication, provided they do not unduly burden legitimate expression.^[66] Environmental statutes, such as those under state protection of the environment acts, handle public nuisances like pollution through regulatory mechanisms requiring demonstration of substantial, ongoing harm to public amenities, reflecting a preference for administrative enforcement over expansive tort liability.^[67] In Canada, public nuisance mirrors English common law as an indictable or summary offense endangering public safety, health, or common rights, with civil applications limited to interferences like highway obstructions or widespread health risks, maintaining strict requirements for public rather than individual harm.^[68] New Zealand follows a comparable framework, where public nuisance demands unreasonable interference with collective interests, as affirmed in Smith v Fonterra Co-operative Group Ltd NZSC 5, in which the Supreme Court allowed a novel claim alleging dairy exporters' greenhouse gas emissions constituted public nuisance by threatening public rights to life and health, though the court stressed the need to prove direct, substantial causation at trial.^[69] Across these jurisdictions, doctrines remain narrower than in the United States, eschewing extensions to remote economic harms or product-based mass claims—such as tobacco litigation—by insisting on tangible, localized encroachments on public domains.^[70]

Remedies and Enforcement Mechanisms

Civil Injunctions and Abatement

Civil injunctions serve as an equitable remedy in public nuisance cases, aimed at prohibiting the continuation or recurrence of the offending activity rather than providing monetary compensation. Courts invoke this relief when damages are deemed inadequate to address ongoing or prospective harm to the public, drawing on longstanding principles of equity that prioritize prevention over cure.^[5]^[71] Typically initiated by public prosecutors or attorneys general representing the state's interest, such injunctions target interferences like environmental pollution or unsafe public gatherings that affect the community at large.^[72] Abatement, another non-compensatory remedy, entails the direct suppression or removal of the nuisance source, either through judicial order or administrative action. Public authorities, such as local governments, possess statutory or common law powers to summarily abate nuisances posing immediate threats to health or safety, such as hazardous structures or waste accumulations, without prior notice in exigent circumstances.^[73] Self-help abatement remains available under common law to affected individuals or entities, permitting reasonable measures to eliminate the interference—provided prior notice is given to the responsible party and only necessary force is employed. However, actors engaging in self-help incur liability for any excessive damage or disproportionate response, as courts assess the proportionality of the intervention to the harm mitigated.^[74]^[75] In fashioning these remedies, equity courts emphasize proportionality and minimal intrusion, often conducting a balancing test that weighs the public harm against the defendant's economic reliance on the activity and broader societal costs. For instance, where a nuisance arises from an operation with significant utility, such as industrial production, judges may opt for conditional injunctions allowing mitigation measures or phased cessation over outright shutdown, reflecting a cost-benefit calculus to avoid undue hardship.^[76] This approach underscores equity's discretion to tailor relief, ensuring it aligns with causal realities of the interference while preserving incentives for productive land use.^[72]

Criminal Prosecution

Public nuisance constitutes a criminal offense under common law traditions, prosecutable by state authorities for acts that unlawfully interfere with public rights to health, safety, or convenience. In the United States, it is generally treated as a misdemeanor, with statutes in multiple states prescribing fines and short-term imprisonment for willful maintenance of conditions endangering the public. For instance, California's Penal Code § 372 deems the creation or maintenance of a public nuisance a misdemeanor punishable by up to six months' confinement and a $1,000 fine.^[77] Similarly, Minnesota Statutes § 609.74 classifies such violations as misdemeanors, emphasizing unreasonable endangerment to public safety or morals.^[78] These provisions require proof of knowing or willful conduct affecting a substantial portion of the community, rather than mere isolated harm.^[79] In the United Kingdom, public nuisance transitioned from a common law indictable offense to a statutory crime under section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, applicable to acts done intentionally or recklessly that risk serious harm to public health, safety, or rights.^[80] The offense carries a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both, with prosecution requiring demonstration of impact on a recognizable section of the public, evidenced by factors like scale, duration, or location of the interference.^[39] Historical common law prosecutions emphasized intent to annoy or endanger the public at large, as seen in cases involving obstructions to highways or emissions posing widespread threats.^[81] Prosecutions demand empirical evidence of broad public risk, such as documentation of affected individuals or expert assessments of harm extent, to distinguish from private disputes.^[82] Negligence alone may suffice in some U.S. statutes, but mens rea like knowledge or recklessness is typically required to establish criminal liability, ensuring accountability for deliberate public endangerment over accidental occurrences.^[83]

Role of Private Plaintiffs

Private plaintiffs possess standing to pursue public nuisance claims only upon demonstrating a special injury distinct in kind or degree from that suffered by the general public, thereby preserving the doctrine's focus on collective harms rather than individual grievances.^[35]^[5] This requirement, rooted in common law principles, ensures that private actions do not encroach upon the state's primary authority to vindicate public rights, such as unobstructed use of highways or public health safeguards.^[2] Without such particularized harm—evidenced by tangible losses like property devaluation or unique economic disruption—courts dismiss claims to avoid transforming public nuisance into a vehicle for generalized private redress.^[49] In certain jurisdictions, individuals may initiate relator actions, wherein a private party petitions a public official, such as the Attorney General, to prosecute on behalf of the public interest, with the relator bearing initial costs but acting in a supportive capacity.^[84]^[11] These proceedings, historically prominent in English equity courts for abating nuisances like unlawful obstructions, allow limited private involvement without granting independent control, as the state retains prosecutorial discretion to prevent abuse or privatization of enforcement.^[85] Standalone private suits remain viable where verifiable particular damages are proven, such as quantifiable interference with riparian rights or localized pollution impacts exceeding public averages, but courts rigorously scrutinize evidence to confirm the injury's uniqueness.^[7] Class actions offer another avenue in select U.S. jurisdictions for aggregating harms from public nuisances, enabling groups to seek injunctive relief against widespread interferences like environmental contamination, provided commonality and predominance criteria under Rule 23 are met.^[5] However, such certifications face heightened judicial skepticism, as they risk diluting the public nature of the right by substituting aggregated private claims for governmental action, potentially undermining legislative or regulatory frameworks designed for collective remediation.^[86] Overall, doctrinal limits preclude private plaintiffs from supplanting state enforcement, mandating alignment with public interests to avert the hazards of opportunistic litigation that could privatize oversight of communal harms.^[87]

Notable Cases

Historical Precedents

In English common law, public nuisance precedents originated in the medieval era, targeting verifiable encroachments on public rights like highways and royal domains, with remedies centered on abatement to restore access. By the 14th century, cases documented in Year Books addressed obstructions such as barriers across roads, where sheriffs or affected parties could summarily remove impediments without prior judicial process, provided the interference was localized and empirically demonstrable.^[88]^[3] A notable 19th-century application appeared in R. v. Cross (1812), where a stagecoach proprietor was indicted for permitting vehicles to stand stationary for an unreasonable time on the public highway near Charing Cross in London, causing verifiable obstruction to passersby and traffic. The court convicted the defendant of public nuisance, emphasizing the direct causal link between the prolonged parking—lasting up to several hours daily—and the hindrance to public passage, resulting in an order for abatement through immediate removal of the coaches to prevent recurrence. This case underscored traditional enforcement against commercial activities that empirically disrupted communal routes without broader societal harms. Early abatement outcomes in highway cases often involved physical intervention, such as dismantling barriers or clearing debris dumps blocking paths, as seen in precedents where nuisances like accumulated waste or temporary enclosures were abated on-site to eliminate the interference promptly. These remedies prioritized causal remediation over compensation, reflecting first-principles focus on restoring the status quo ante where public use was tangibly impaired by specific, observable acts.^[37] In the United States, post-independence courts adopted these English precedents, applying public nuisance to analogous localized interferences, such as unauthorized fencing enclosing public lands or roads, leading to judicial orders for removal to reinstate access.^[10]

Modern Expansions and Challenges

In the opioid crisis litigation, public nuisance claims achieved significant expansions through settlements exceeding $50 billion globally by 2025, with state and local governments resolving thousands of cases against manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies.^[89] For instance, in December 2021, a New York jury found Teva Pharmaceuticals liable for creating a public nuisance via deceptive marketing, leading to a $523 million settlement.^[90] These outcomes relied on novel theories analogizing opioid distribution to traditional nuisances like environmental pollution, extending liability beyond direct product defects to supply-chain practices.^[53] However, such applications faced rejection where courts deemed them incompatible with product liability statutes; the Oklahoma Supreme Court dismissed claims against Johnson & Johnson in November 2021 for lacking a viable abatement remedy under nuisance doctrine.^[53] Climate change suits invoking public nuisance have encountered repeated dismissals in 2023-2025, primarily for failing to establish localized causation or extraterritorial standing. In January 2025, a Maryland circuit court rejected claims by Annapolis and Anne Arundel County against energy companies like BP, ruling that global emissions did not constitute a cognizable public nuisance under state law due to attenuated harm to specific public rights.^[91] Similarly, federal courts have preempted or dismissed analogous actions, such as those by Oakland and San Mateo County in 2023, affirming remands but narrowing scope to avoid imposing nationwide remedies absent direct interstate impacts.^[92] Pennsylvania's 2024 Bucks County filing against fossil fuel producers highlights ongoing attempts, yet courts have consistently required plaintiffs to prove unreasonable interference with local public interests rather than diffuse global effects.^[60] Public nuisance claims against plastics manufacturers represent another modern frontier, targeting pollution from single-use products and microplastics. In July 2024, a California superior court allowed a suit by the People's Mare Island Ecological Reserve against Procter & Gamble and others to proceed, finding allegations of statewide plastic waste as a public nuisance sufficiently pleaded harm to public waterways and health.^[93] New York's November 2023 action against PepsiCo sought abatement of litter in urban areas, framing producer responsibility for end-of-life disposal.^[94] Contrasting successes, a December 2024 New York federal court dismissed similar claims against food and beverage firms, rejecting theories imputing liability for third-party waste management as overextending nuisance to economic rather than physical interferences.^[95] Judicial challenges have increasingly constrained these expansions to avert public nuisance's transformation into a "super tort" unbound by traditional limits like proximate cause or localized injury. In December 2024, the Ohio Supreme Court held that the Ohio Product Liability Act abrogates all common-law public nuisance claims arising from product sales, including opioid distribution by pharmacies, as they duplicate statutory product defect remedies without distinct abatement elements.^[96]^[97] This ruling, applicable to two counties' claims against chains like CVS, underscores courts' insistence on doctrinal boundaries to prevent circumventing legislative schemes on liability.^[98] Such decisions reflect a broader trend rejecting unbounded applications, prioritizing evidentiary rigor over policy-driven liability.^[99]

Criticisms and Debates

Claims of Doctrinal Overreach

Critics argue that expansions of public nuisance doctrine have transformed it from a targeted remedy for localized interferences into a mechanism for imposing expansive liability on manufacturers and distributors in mass tort contexts, such as lawsuits against firearm producers. Traditionally focused on abatement of harms to public rights like navigation or health, these suits now seek billions in damages for purported "social costs" without requiring proof of direct causation or fault attributable to defendants' conduct on public property. For instance, municipal claims against gun manufacturers, exemplified by Chicago's suit seeking over $433 million for policing and social services related to gun violence, deviate from historical precedents by prioritizing monetary recovery over injunctions, effectively recasting product-related societal issues as nuisances.^[100]^[87] The vagueness inherent in modern applications allows plaintiffs to invoke amorphous concepts like "community-wide health threats" or aggregate economic burdens, eroding the doctrine's requirement for substantial, foreseeable interference with defined public rights and fostering unpredictability for economic actors. This shift enables subjective assessments of harms, such as the "social costs" of lawful products, without clear boundaries, as seen in opioid litigation where governments pursued recovery for epidemic-related expenditures untethered to specific nuisance conditions. Legal scholars contend this undermines the foreseeability essential to tort law, turning public nuisance into a "super tort" susceptible to opportunistic claims rather than a principled tool for public welfare.^[100]^[101]^[87] Such developments bypass legislative processes by delegating policy determinations—such as industry regulation or cost allocation—to courts ill-equipped for complex balancing of societal benefits and burdens. Post-2000 surges in these suits, including against opioid distributors yielding judgments like $572 million, align more closely with municipal fiscal pressures than demonstrable violations of traditional public rights, with governments leveraging contingency-fee arrangements to extract settlements amid budget constraints. This pattern suggests instrumental use of the doctrine to circumvent failed political efforts, as legislatures have addressed analogous issues through statutes like the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005, rendering judicial overreach redundant and disruptive to separation of powers.^[100]^[87]^[101]

Concerns Regarding Property Rights and Judicial Activism

Critics argue that expansive applications of public nuisance doctrine impose retroactive liability on industries for emissions or activities conducted under then-applicable regulations, undermining settled property expectations and deterring long-term investments in energy infrastructure.^[102]^[103] For instance, lawsuits filed by municipalities like Honolulu in 2020 against fossil fuel producers seek abatement and disgorgement of profits for greenhouse gas emissions from lawfully produced and sold products dating back decades, creating uncertainty that discourages innovation in sectors reliant on predictable legal frameworks.^[104] Similarly, state attorneys general-led climate suits in the 2020s, including those alleging public nuisance from transboundary pollution, expose companies to penalties for historical operations without individualized causation, potentially eroding due process protections grounded in foreseeable liability.^[105]^[106] Such claims are viewed by property rights advocates as judicial overreach, where courts effectively rewrite economic regulations absent legislative action, supplanting democratic processes with ad hoc equitable remedies.^[107] In cases like those pursued by Democratic attorneys general against opioid manufacturers—framing marketing and distribution as public nuisances—judges have been drawn into policy determinations on product safety and allocation of societal costs, bypassing elected bodies responsible for balancing competing interests.^[108] This pattern extends to 2020s efforts, such as New York and Vermont's climate accountability laws imposing strict, retroactive financial obligations on fossil fuel entities for past emissions, which federal challenges contend violate due process by penalizing conduct previously deemed compliant.^[109] From a perspective emphasizing rigorous causal attribution over generalized blame, these developments risk diluting evidentiary standards in nuisance law, traditionally requiring proof of direct interference rather than attenuated global harms.^[110] Conservative legal scholars warn that prioritizing collective redress through judicial fiat, as in suits aggregating diffuse injuries without tracing specific harms to defendants, threatens core liberties by enabling regulators to retroactively deem lawful property uses as nuisances, thereby chilling economic activity across lawful industries like manufacturing and extraction.^[111]^[102] This approach, they contend, inverts first-in-time expectations where owners invest based on existing rules, fostering an environment of perpetual litigation risk that hampers capital allocation and technological advancement.^[112]

Counterarguments on Utility in Addressing Public Harms

Public nuisance doctrine serves a remedial function in jurisdictions where statutory regulations lag behind evolving public harms, particularly localized environmental interferences like pollution. In the absence of comprehensive federal air quality laws prior to 1970, courts invoked public nuisance to enjoin industrial emitters, such as coal-fired factories, from releasing excessive smoke that substantially interfered with community health and land use.^[29] These actions prompted defendants to adopt cleaner technologies, yielding tangible air quality gains; for example, early 20th-century rulings in Chicago and St. Louis correlated with reduced soot levels and fewer smoke-related complaints, as documented in municipal records and subsequent legal analyses.^[29] Abatement thus restored public rights to unobstructed atmospheric commons without awaiting legislative action, demonstrating causal efficacy in causal chains from emission to harm.^[10] In housing contexts, public nuisance enforcement addresses gaps in criminal and zoning statutes by targeting properties enabling persistent antisocial conduct, such as drug distribution or chronic disorder. State attorneys general and local prosecutors have secured injunctions and closures against non-compliant owners, with empirical outcomes including decreased incident reports at abated sites. In North Carolina, for instance, a 2025 civil nuisance abatement in Lenoir resulted in a final judgment ordering property remediation and forfeiture, following evidence of repeated drug-related arrests and violence at the location.^[113] Similarly, a December 2024 Harnett County judgment abated a residential nuisance tied to narcotics operations, leading to site clearance and reduced police dispatches.^[114] Such interventions leverage private property accountability to mitigate diffuse public costs, like elevated emergency services, where fragmented enforcement otherwise persists. The doctrine's utility hinges on evidentiary rigor—requiring proof of unreasonable, localized interference affecting a considerable populace—ensuring applicability to verifiable harms rather than policy disagreements. Legal scholars note its alignment with tort principles in prompting efficient precaution by injurers, as seen in historical precedents where abatement costs incentivized compliance without supplanting emerging regulations.^[10] Absent these constraints, however, applications risk extending to non-nuisance regulatory aims, underscoring the need for judicial gatekeeping to preserve doctrinal integrity.^[10]

References

[1]
public nuisance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A public nuisance generally refers to any conduct that interferes with the rights of the public. The precise definition of public nuisance often varies by state ...
[2]
Litigation, Overview - Public Nuisance (Common ... - Bloomberg Law
A public nuisance is defined as an unreasonable interference with a right that is common to the public at large. Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 821B; Court ...
[3]
[PDF] The Historical Development of Public Nuisance
Sep 12, 2024 · Public nuisance began as a criminal action in English common law, initially involving land interference, and later became a "super tort" with a ...
[4]
Nuisance | Practical Law - Thomson Reuters
There are two types of common law nuisance: A public nuisance arises from an act that endangers the life, health, property, morals or comfort of the public ...
[5]
nuisance | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A public nuisance is when a person unreasonably interferes with a right that the general public shares in common. For example, a business that emits large ...
[6]
Private vs. Public Nuisance Claims Against Property Owners - AllLaw
A nuisance is an activity or condition that interferes with the use or enjoyment of property. A nuisance can be private or public.What Is a Nuisance? · Two Types of Nuisance · Enforcing Public Nuisance Laws
[7]
Tort Law: The Rules of Public Nuisance - Lawshelf
Public nuisance allows recovery for activities that hurt a neighborhood or society, interfering with public property or rights. Only public authorities or ...
[8]
[PDF] A DOZEN LANDMARK NUISANCE CASES AND THEIR ...
LANDMARK PUBLIC NUISANCE CASES AND THE ENVIRONMENT. Originally a common law crime, the Crown exclusively prosecuted public nuisance claims, typically for ...
[9]
"A Dozen Landmark Nuisance Cases and Their Environmental ...
Over four centuries, nuisance law has proved its versatility. Originally, a near strict liability doctrine restraining uses that interfered with traditional ...
[10]
The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance - The Yale Law Journal
Jan 3, 2023 · Historically, public nuisance has long addressed problems such as harmful products. Doctrinally, it accords better with tort law than is ...
[11]
[PDF] The Perils and Promise of Public Nuisance - The Yale Law Journal
Public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the public, used in cases like opioid and climate-change suits.
[12]
[PDF] The Plaintiffs' Lawyer Quest for the Holy Grail:
Mar 1, 2025 · THE HISTORY & DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC NUISANCE LAW For 700 years, the key concepts and elements of a public nuisance action have been: 1) A ...
[13]
What is a Public Nuisance? - LawInfo.com
Nov 28, 2023 · A public nuisance unreasonably interferes with your right to public property. · Examples of public nuisance include loud noises, health hazards, ...
[14]
[PDF] Abating Public Nuisances - IML Legal - Illinois Municipal League
According to Illinois common law, a nuisance is that which unlawfully annoys or does damage to another. 5 In addition, “[a] nuisance is something that is ...
[15]
Public or Common Nuisances - USLegal
It is to be noted that a public nuisance can constitute either a crime or may be the subject of a civil action by public officials or private individuals. At ...
[16]
The New Public Nuisance: Illegitimate and Dysfunctional
Feb 20, 2023 · In England, where public nuisance started, public nuisance is still regarded as a type of common-law criminal liability. In the United ...
[17]
[PDF] Public Nuisance Law: Resistance to Expansive New Theories
In the eternal struggle by plaintiffs' lawyers to stretch the law to fit their clients' cases, public nuisance law has quite a history. Over the past few.
[18]
[PDF] Public Trust and Public Nuisance: Common Law Peas in a Pod?
unreasonable and substantial interference with a public right.6. Originating ... at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number.
[19]
Nuisance (Private, Public) - Lexplug
Traditionally, nuisance is divided into two broad categories: private nuisance and public nuisance. ... Unreasonable interference: In deciding unreasonableness ...
[20]
[PDF] The Law of Public Nuisance - Shook, Hardy & Bacon
Throughout history, there have been various attempts to turn the tort of public nuisance into a Zelig-like legal theory as amor- phous as the word "nuisance" ...<|separator|>
[21]
[PDF] USING PUBLIC NUISANCE TO COMPEL CHEMICAL TESTING
requirements of significance and unreasonableness essentially over- ... suggesting that balancing of utilities test should apply to public nuisance claims is.
[22]
Public Nuisance Claims as a Way to Prove Business Liability in U.S. ...
Mar 25, 2022 · ... public right. Since the focus of public nuisance is on the impact to the public, public authorities retain the right to sue, and individuals ...
[23]
[PDF] Liability for Unintentional Nuisances: How the Restatement of Torts ...
In 1979 the Second Restatement of Torts aligned private nuisance law' squarely with the law of torts by altering the elements of liability to require 1).
[24]
Courts of law records from the medieval period: general eyres 1194 ...
This guide will help you find records at The National Archives of medieval lawsuits and legal cases heard before travelling ('itinerant') courts, known as ...
[25]
[PDF] The Development of Nuisance in the Early Common Law
Fitz- herbert cites a case of 153559 which he asserts holds that "obstructing the public highway is a common nuisance and if plaintiff is injured he has his ...
[26]
Statute of Sewers - Wikipedia
The statute gave the commissions of sewers legislative powers, the power to impose taxation upon landowners, and the power to impose penalties for the non- ...Missing: dams impeding public nuisance
[27]
Nuisance - LONANG Institute
Nuisance, nocumentum, or annoyance, signifies any thing that works hurt, inconvenience, or damage.
[28]
Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day ...
In the late nineteenth century, as the United States industrialized, new factories burned dirty coal that polluted cities with dense, black smoke. 26Frank ...
[29]
The Smoke of Great Cities - Air Pollution, 1860-1914 - jstor
Glasgow, Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and Cincinnati, all suffered through de- cades of dense air pollution before relief could be found.
[30]
[PDF] Air Pollution as Public Nuisance: Comparing Modern-Day ...
May 4, 2022 · NINETEENTH-CENTURY SMOKE ABATEMENT In recent years, state and local governments have filed public nuisance actions against oil companies, ...
[31]
Balancing Doctrine in Pollution Nuisance Law, 1840–1906
Oct 28, 2011 · This article looks at how nineteenth-century American judges grappled with this quandary by examining their use of balancing doctrine in ...
[32]
[PDF] In an examination of the existing limitations of freedom of - AustLII
The question of reasonable user of a public place comes within the law of public nuisance. This common law misdemeanour is an offence. "against the public ...
[33]
The Economics of Public Nuisance Law and the New Enforcement ...
To have a right to sue under public nuisance doctrine, the plaintiff has to suffer a particular harm that is greater than that suffered by the general public.<|separator|>
[34]
[PDF] Game Over? Why Recent State Supreme Court Decisions Should ...
The court continued, “Further, because we conclude . . . that plaintiffs' claim does not meet all of the required elements of a public nuisance action, we need ...
[35]
https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2934&context=wvlr
[36]
[PDF] Private Actions for Public Nuisance: The Standing Problem
In affirming a permanent injunction, the court said that "the difference between a private nuisance and a public nuisance is generally one of degree." 6 The ...
[37]
[PDF] Public Nuisance as Modern Business Tort: A New Unified ...
Dec 13, 2021 · violation of a public right actionable under public nuisance—could fall dramatically short of the goal of “usefully deter[ing] repetition of ...
[38]
[PDF] Public Nuisance: Standing to Sue Without Showing "Special Injury"
Concerned with plans for the development of condominiums along Sand. Key beach, appellant brought suit, seeking declaratory relief to confirm cer-.Missing: damages | Show results with:damages
[39]
Public nuisance—general principles | Legal Guidance - LexisNexis
Apr 16, 2025 · The Common law offence of public nuisance was abolished by section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (PCSCA 2022) and ...
[40]
The use of the new statutory public nuisance offence to prosecute ...
Mar 15, 2023 · The new statutory offence of intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance codified and abolished the old offence of common law public nuisance.<|separator|>
[41]
Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging ...
Jun 25, 2015 · Public nuisance is a common law offence involving environmental danger or loss of amenity or offensive public behaviour.
[42]
PUBLIC NUISANCE - Wiglaw
In cases where all members of the public are equally, then only the Attorney-General has a right to take civil proceedings, but presumably only if an offence ...
[43]
Highways Act 1980, Obstruction of - Legislation.gov.uk
If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to
[44]
Highway obstructions and nuisance | Planning Law - LexisNexis
It is an offence 'if a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway'.Missing: Attorney | Show results with:Attorney
[45]
Environmental Protection Act 1990 - Legislation.gov.uk
No matter shall constitute a statutory nuisance to the extent that it consists of, or is caused by, any land being in a contaminated state.
[46]
Environmental Protection Act 1990, Section 79 - Legislation.gov.uk
No matter shall constitute a statutory nuisance to the extent that it consists of, or is caused by, any land being in a contaminated state.Section 80 · 05/01/1994- Amendment · 01/02/1991- Amendment
[47]
Statutory nuisances: how councils deal with complaints - GOV.UK
Apr 7, 2015 · Councils must investigate complaints about issues that could be a 'statutory nuisance' (a nuisance covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990).What can be a statutory nuisance · Abatement notices
[48]
Shelter Legal England - Local authority statutory nuisance duties
Jun 3, 2024 · Part 3 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA 1990) imposes a duty on every local authority to inspect its area for statutory nuisances ...
[49]
Court of Appeal provides guidance on sentencing for acts of civil ...
Mar 13, 2025 · The Court of Appeal reduces sentences of Just Stop Oil protesters understood to be the longest terms of imprisonment imposed on peaceful protestors in modern ...
[50]
Potential Liability for Businesses Under the Public Nuisance Doctrine
May 8, 2020 · While state law varies, the public nuisance doctrine generally protects the public against unreasonable and substantial interference with a ...Missing: United variations
[51]
[PDF] Federal Preemption, and Federal Common Law, in Nuisance Cases
In order to understand how this analysis plays out, it is instructive to start with the early cases that articulated a federal common law of nuisance for ...
[52]
[PDF] In the Supreme Court of the United States
Dec 3, 2024 · Most courts have properly rejected these lawsuits, including on proximate causation grounds. As dis- cussed, around the time the PLCAA was ...Missing: separation | Show results with:separation
[53]
[PDF] Opioid Settlements and Profitable Public Nuisances
The $40 billion in abatement funds is a substantial pool of money that is likely to help states combat opioid use and abuse. Large as the payments are, however, ...
[54]
[PDF] EMERGING PUBLIC NUISANCE LIABILITY IN OPIOID LITIGATION
In five recent trials, this novel application of public nuisance law— seeking to hold the opioid industry liable for the opioid crisis—has resulted in mixed ...
[55]
Gunmakers lose appeal of New York public nuisance law | Reuters
Jul 10, 2025 · A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a New York public nuisance law exposing the gun industry to possible civil lawsuits when people ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[56]
The Firearms Litigation Onslaught: A Near-Fatal Attack on the ...
May 19, 2025 · 40 lawsuits filed nationwide under public nuisance and negligence theories, designed to bankrupt the firearms industry and render the Second Amendment ...Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s
[57]
Cities, counties, and states score major procedural win in climate ...
May 12, 2023 · The Supreme Court declined to hear a petition, sending 11 climate liability cases back to state court, a major procedural win for plaintiffs.
[58]
The second wave of climate change public nuisance litigation
State and local governments (as well as a fishing industry trade group) are bringing a second wave of climate change public nuisance cases based on state law.
[59]
[PDF] Prescription for Failure: Public Nuisance Claims Against the Opioid ...
Jan 22, 2025 · Master Settlement Agreement, public nuisance captured the attention of state governmental entities in the firearm and lead paint industries.
[60]
Firearm Manufacturer Defendants File Motion for Judgement ... - NSSF
Mar 18, 2024 · Defendants in the City of Gary public nuisance lawsuits are moving to end nearly quarter of a century of legal maneuverings.Missing: 2020s | Show results with:2020s<|separator|>
[61]
Clearing the Air on Public Nuisance and Preemption: A Look at ...
Aug 1, 2025 · In 2024, Bucks County filed suit against several fossil-fuel companies and a trade association, asserting claims for public nuisance, among ...
[62]
[PDF] united states district court
Mar 19, 2025 · An appellate court dismissed the claims as ... Second, public nuisance requires proximate causation and does not allow plaintiffs to rely.
[63]
Public and Private Nuisance - Queensland Law Handbook
Sep 26, 2024 · A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with the public's right to the exercise or enjoyment of any right common to all.
[64]
Public Nuisance & Private Nuisance NSW | Michael McMillan Law
Public nuisance is when behavior unreasonably interferes with public spaces, while private nuisance is when actions interfere with another's private property.
[65]
SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 - SECT 6 Public nuisance
A public nuisance offense occurs when someone behaves disorderly, offensive, threatening, or violent, interfering with public passage or enjoyment of a public ...
[66]
Public Nuisance - Doogue + George
Causing a nuisance is a broad offence that can cover a wide range of behaviour. It is found in s 61 of the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008.
[67]
[PDF] Poverty, Police and the Offence of Public Nuisance
The majority of the High Court. (McHugh J dissenting) ultimately held that the old provision was not constitutionally invalid: Coleman v Power (2004) 220 CLR 1.
[68]
Nuisance in Western Australia | Armstrong Legal
The common law in Western Australia contains the law about nuisance. This means that the law is found in cases rather than in legislation.
[69]
C. Public Nuisance - vLex Canada
A public nuisance is a crime where an unlawful act endangers public safety, health, property, or comfort, or obstructs common rights. It is a very general ...
[70]
Smith v Fonterra - Environmental Law Australia
In Smith v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2024] NZSC 5 the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled in favour of a remarkable climate case continuing to trial.
[71]
Pushing boundaries: public nuisance claims in class actions and ...
Public nuisance can provide an attractive vehicle for class actions and mass tort litigation by providing an arguable right of action based on alleged ...
[72]
Equitable Remedies and Injunctive Relief - Nuisances
Two types of remedies are provided under common law for a nuisance. They are damages and injunction to restrain the continuance of the wrong.<|separator|>
[73]
[PDF] Equitable Relief Against Nuisances - UKnowledge
"'No invasion of a property right need be shown in order to justify the use -A an injunction to abate a public nuisance at the instance of. ... public nuisance to ...
[74]
Nuisance Abatement and Local Governments: What a Mess
Jun 16, 2011 · G.S. 160A-193 (abatement of public health nuisances) provides that a city “shall have the authority to summarily remove, abate, or remedy ...
[75]
[PDF] Self-Help: A Viable Remedy for Nuisance
Self-help, under common law, allows a person affected by a nuisance to take action to abate it, instead of formal legal processes.
[76]
[PDF] Self-Help and the Nature of Property - bepress Legal Repository
Mar 18, 2005 · Self-help abatement of a nuisance is only allowed after notice is given to the nuisance-causing landowner, the one abating the nuisance may use ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[77]
[PDF] Making Sense of Abatement as a Tort Remedy
Mar 12, 2024 · The overlap between the injunctive remedy available to nuisance plaintiffs in both pri- vate and public nuisance and the remedy available to ...
[78]
Public Nuisance - Penal Code 372, 373a PC - Cron Israels and Stark
California Penal Code 372 and 373a PC are the main statutes that make it a misdemeanor crime to create, maintain, permit, or allow a public nuisance.
[79]
Sec. 609.74 MN Statutes
... public nuisance, which is a misdemeanor: (1) maintains or permits a condition which unreasonably annoys, injures or endangers the safety, health, morals ...
[80]
New Mexico Statutes Section 30-8-1 (2024) - Public nuisance.
A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority which is ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[81]
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 - Legislation.gov.uk
(6)The common law offence of public nuisance is abolished. (7)Subsections (1) to (6) do not apply in relation to—. (a) ...
[82]
Criminal Prosecution - Nuisances - USLegal
A common nuisance or a public nuisance is punishable as a misdemeanor at common law. To be a public nuisance, an act must be illegal or committed in an illegal ...
[83]
New Mexico Statutes Chapter 30. Criminal Offenses § 30-8-1
A public nuisance consists of knowingly creating, performing or maintaining anything affecting any number of citizens without lawful authority.Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[84]
13-2917 - Public nuisance; abatement; classification
... a public nuisance or who knowingly fails or refuses to perform any legal duty relating to the removal of a public nuisance is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor.
[85]
Relator Actions
May 13, 2020 · The relator exclusively bears all the legal costs of the action and is solely liable to the defendant for any award of costs and/or damages made ...
[86]
[PDF] ON BEING A NUISANCE - NYU Law Review
The remainder of the Article delves into history, doctrine, and tort theory to establish that private nuisance and public nuisance are two different.
[87]
The US Plaintiffs' Class Action Bar Increasingly Looks to and Relies ...
Oct 1, 2020 · In contrast, an individual has generally only been allowed to sue for a private nuisance, and recover damages, when—as “private” nuisance ...
[88]
[PDF] The Public Nuisance 'Super Tort' - American Tort Reform Association
(1) A public nuisance lawsuit must defend a public right. Blocking private driveways or even doing something against the public interest is not interfering with ...
[89]
1 - Historical Context of Private and Public Nuisance at Law and Equity
Nov 2, 2023 · This chapter traces the historical derivation of private and public nuisance law, extending back to 12th century England.
[90]
Public nuisance law, used to secure opioid settlements and more, is ...
Jun 27, 2025 · From 2021-25, state and local governments agreed to global settlements with opioid manufacturers, distributors and retailers resolving thousands ...Missing: litigation | Show results with:litigation
[91]
New York Opioid Litigation Documents - Industry Documents Library
A verdict was delivered against Teva et al. for creating a public nuisance on December 30, 2021. Teva later settled the claims for $523 million. Documents.
[92]
City of Annapolis v. BP p.l.c. - The Climate Litigation Database
On January 23, 2025, the Maryland Circuit Court in Anne Arundel County dismissed the City of Annapolis's and Anne Arundel County's lawsuits seeking to hold ...
[93]
Search US Cases - Climate Change Litigation
Court/Admin Entity: 9th Cir. Status: Remand to state court affirmed. [ 11/27/2023 ]. Description: Public nuisance actions brought by City of Oakland and City ...Missing: rulings | Show results with:rulings
[94]
Court Greenlights Landmark Plastic Pollution Lawsuit
Jul 18, 2024 · State judge finds complaint alleges viable public nuisance claim based on corporations' harmful impact on California residents.
[95]
Guest Editorial: Litigation Targeting Plastics Manufacturers - Gradient
Regarding public nuisance actions, in November 2023, New York filed a lawsuit against Pepsico, seeking to hold the company responsible for plastic pollution ...
[96]
Novel Theory of Liability Against Food and Beverage Manufacturers ...
Dec 23, 2024 · The novel theory of liability holds manufacturers liable for third-party actions related to plastic pollution, but the court rejected it in New ...
[97]
[PDF] In re Natl. Prescription Opiate Litigation - Supreme Court of Ohio
Dec 10, 2024 · —All common-law public-nuisance claims arising from the sale of a product have been abrogated by Ohio Product Liability Act—. Certified question ...Missing: preemption | Show results with:preemption
[98]
Public Nuisance Lawsuits Cannot Be Pursued Against Pharmacies ...
Dec 10, 2024 · Two Ohio counties cannot claim national pharmaceutical chains caused a public nuisance by selling opioids and could only bring a lawsuit ...
[99]
Ohio Does Not Recognize Public Nuisance Claims for Products
The ruling clarifies that such claims, once a prominent strategy in opioid litigation, are precluded by Ohio's Products Liability Act (OPLA).Missing: preemption | Show results with:preemption
[100]
Ohio Joins the Growing List of States to Reject the Public Nuisance ...
Jan 21, 2025 · Ohio rejected public nuisance as a "super tort" because it's not product-based, and the Product Liability Act (OPLA) is the exclusive remedy ...Missing: preemption | Show results with:preemption
[101]
[PDF] Waking the Litigation Monster
Public nuisance is an ancient tort, dating to 12th century England, originally created as a criminal writ to remedy actions or conditions that infringed on ...
[102]
The Mismatch Between Public Nuisance Law And Global Warming
This article makes three principal points regarding the recent efforts to use public nuisance litigation to address the problem of climate change.
[103]
Supreme Court Must Freeze the Climate Extortion of Our Energy ...
Oct 1, 2025 · Blue cities and states have filed tort suits in state courts to extract money for allegedly causing weather-related costs in their jurisdictions ...
[104]
The Legal Battle Over Climate Superfund Laws: Vermont and New ...
Apr 4, 2025 · Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment: The plaintiffs argue that the law imposes overly harsh, retroactive penalties for decades-old, ...
[105]
Honolulu Lawsuit Demonizes Oil and Gas Production, Seeks ...
Apr 6, 2020 · The City and County of Honolulu launched its public nuisance climate change lawsuit against energy companies earlier this month and it's become ...
[106]
Another Court Rules Against Regulation-by-Litigation in Climate ...
Jul 20, 2018 · The lawsuit claimed those companies were responsible for public and private nuisances under federal common law for the transboundary effects of ...
[107]
Federal Government Sues Four States Over Climate Superfund ...
May 9, 2025 · Although details vary, the statutes generally impose retroactive, strict liability for emissions tied to fossil fuel extraction and refining ...
[108]
https://lawpublications.barry.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1211&context=facultyscholarship
[109]
[PDF] State Attorneys General and the Public Nuisance Doctrine
State attorneys general claim the public nuisance doctrine allows them to seek damages for opioid manufacturing, marketing, and sale.
[110]
Trump Administration's Action Against Climate Superfund Laws and ...
Jun 15, 2025 · The “Climate Superfund Acts” enacted in New York and Vermont aim to impose retroactive financial liability on fossil fuel producers for climate ...
[111]
Originally Speaking: Climate Change and Common Law Public ...
Dec 7, 2018 · In truth, public nuisance actions are not truly “tort” lawsuits, but are instead “public” actions filed to motivate social reform without ...Missing: criticism | Show results with:criticism
[112]
Public Nuisance Expansion and Litigation
Lawyers have expanded public nuisance legal theory such that merely selling an everyday product can create virtually unlimited liability.
[113]
[PDF] Using Public Nuisance Litigation to Address Industrywide Misconduct
Jan 1, 2025 · 41 A state appellate court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' public nuisance claim, and the case ultimately settled ...
[114]
Final Judgment Ordered in Lenoir Nuisance Case | NC DPS
Sep 19, 2025 · Based in these investigative findings, a civil nuisance abatement case was filed in Superior Court. On Sept. 15, 2025, Superior Court Judge, ...
[115]
Final Judgment Ordered in Harnett Nuisance Case | NC DPS
Dec 17, 2024 · On December 16, 2024, Resident Superior Court Judge Winston Gilchrist signed a Consent Judgment for a Chapter 19 Nuisance Abatement action.