Court Opinion

ID: 9444416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:00:12.886345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:51.694095
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
Upon motion for rehearing, appellant takes issue with the statement in our opinion to the effect that April, 1952, was the month the nuisance was created. While several nuisances were alleged, the findings of the trial court related primarily to the building of the soap bowl. The record is not very clear as to the date it became offensive, but June 1 seems to be the correct date. Appellant concedes in its brief that “soap odors began about June 1, 1952.” Appellee testified that they began more than a year before the trial, which began on June 2, 1953.
Appellant also conceded that the ap-pellees’ loss in revenue amounted to $500.00 a month for a period of twenty months beginning June 1, 1952. Appellant attributes this almost entirely to the change in the route of Highway 80. The statistics introduced by appellant show that there was a drop of 61.7% of traffic along the old route as between 1950 and 1951. There was a nominal increase in 1952. Thus, the trial court was fully justified in finding that not more than 50% of this particular loss, occurring after June 1, 1952, should be attributed to this change in route, and that the admitted nuisance accounted for 25% of the loss. Our opinion is modified by striking the words, “That is the month the nuisance was created.” As modified the opinion stands, and the motion for rehearing is
Denied.