Opinion ID: 1721531
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicable law. In determining whether to grant injunctive relief to abate a nuisance, courts employ a balancing test incorporating the following factors:

Text: (a) the character of the interest to be protected, (b) the relative adequacy to the plaintiff of injunction and of other remedies, (c) plaintiff's delay in bringing suit, (d) plaintiff's misconduct, (e) the relative hardship likely to result to defendant if injunction is granted and to plaintiff if it is denied, (f) the interests of third persons and of the public, and (g) the practicality of framing and enforcing the order or judgment. Helmkamp v. Clark Ready Mix Co., 214 N.W.2d 126, 130 (Iowa 1974). The decision is a judgment call. Id. 2. The merits on the injunctive relief issue. The final issue concerns whether the district court should have granted the Weinholds injunctive relief and ordered an abatement of the nuisance. The Weinholds contend the court should have. The Wolffs, of course, contend otherwise. In applying the balancing factors in Helmkamp, we conclude we should deny the Weinholds injunctive relief. We do so for the following reasons. First, we have already determined that the Weinholds should have special damages. Additionally, the district court may on remand award damages to the Weinholds for diminution of the market value of their property. We think such damages provide the Weinholds an adequate remedy. Second, as we mentioned, to abate the nuisance, we would need to order removal or closure of the basin. As we also mentioned, this is not an equitable and practical solution because such relief would result in closing the operation. Closing the operation would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of Iowa Code chapter 352. Last, because closing the operation would be contrary to the legislature's goal of protecting farming operations, the public's interest is directly implicated.