Yes. The court decided that the non-stop dog barking was a 'private nuisance,' which is the legal term for when your actions seriously harm your neighbor's right to enjoy their property. The court said the barking was a major problem, not a minor annoyance. Wiggins had to know that keeping that many dogs would cause a racket for his neighbors. The court weighed both sides and found that the harm to the neighbors' peaceful life was much greater than the benefit of Wiggins's dog business, especially since the neighbors lived there first. However, the court felt that the first judge's order to limit Wiggins to only six dogs was too strict without more evidence. So, they sent the case back to the lower court to find a fairer solution that would stop the excessive noise but not totally crush Wiggins's business if possible.

Yes, the constant loud barking from Wiggins's many dogs was a nuisance because it really bothered the neighbors and made it hard for them to enjoy their own properties. The neighbors showed the barking was all the time, very loud, and disrupted their lives. Wiggins knew that having that many dogs would cause a lot of noise that would bother the neighbors. The court had to balance the harm to the neighbors against how much Wiggins needed the dogs for his business, and it decided the harm to the neighbors was more important. But the court went too far in saying Wiggins could only have six dogs. It needs to look at the evidence more to decide the right number of dogs that won't cause a nuisance.

Yes, the constant loud barking from Wiggins's many dogs is a nuisance because it really bothers the neighbors and makes it hard for them to enjoy their own properties. The neighbors showed that the barking was constant, very loud, and disrupted their lives. Wiggins knew that having so many dogs would cause a lot of noise that would bother his neighbors. We must balance the harm to the neighbors against how much Wiggins needs the dogs for his business, but we find that the trial court went too far by saying Wiggins could only keep six dogs. We need to look at the evidence more closely to decide the right number of dogs that will not cause a nuisance.

Yes. The constant and excessive barking from Wiggins's dog kennel constitutes a private nuisance because it is a substantial, intentional, and unreasonable invasion of the plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their land. The court affirmed the finding of a nuisance but reversed the specific remedy. The reasoning is that the invasion was substantial, as testified by multiple witnesses who confirmed the noise was pervasive and disruptive to ordinary life. It was intentional because Wiggins knew that kenneling a large number of dogs was substantially certain to result in noise that would invade his neighbors' property. The invasion was unreasonable because after balancing the interests of the parties, the gravity of the harm to the plaintiffs' ability to enjoy their property outweighed the utility of Wiggins's kennel business, especially given that the plaintiffs were there first and Wiggins's attempts to mitigate the noise had failed. However, the trial court abused its discretion by ordering a reduction to six dogs, as there was insufficient evidence to prove this specific number was necessary to abate the nuisance. The case is remanded for the trial court to determine a less restrictive remedy that is tailored to abating the nuisance without unnecessarily destroying Wiggins's business.

Yes, the constant barking from the numerous dogs kenneled on Wiggins's property constituted an actionable private nuisance because the evidence showed it was a substantial and unreasonable invasion of the plaintiffs' interest in the use and enjoyment of their properties. The plaintiffs sufficiently proved the barking was constant, at all hours, could be heard inside their homes, and interfered with their enjoyment of outdoor activities on their properties. This was a substantial invasion. It was also intentional, as Wiggins knew the large number of dogs would result in constant barking that was substantially certain to invade the plaintiffs' properties. Finally, the invasion was unreasonable, as the court properly balanced the harm to the plaintiffs against the utility and suitability of Wiggins's kennels and found the gravity of the harm outweighed the benefit. However, the court abused its discretion in limiting Wiggins to only six dogs, as the evidence did not show that was necessary to abate the nuisance. The case is remanded for further proceedings on the appropriate scope of the injunction.

Dobbs v. Wiggins

Case Podcast

Rule of Law:

The Legal Principle

Facts:

Procedural Posture:

How It Got Here

Issue:

Legal Question at Stake

Opinions:

Majority, Concurrences & Dissents

Analysis:

Why This Case Matters

Gunnerbot