After reviewing the case briefs (attached), answer the questions that follow in 500 words, or as thorough as possible. ( Answers are already provided in the attached file, just need to elaborate to make it to 500 words in total)
CASE BRIEF 10.1 Spur Industries, Inc. v. Del E. Webb Dev. Co. 494 P.2d 700 (Ariz. 1972) FACTS: Spur Industries operated a cattle feedlot near Youngtown and Sun City (communities 14 to 15 miles west of Phoenix). Spur had been operating the feedlot since 1956, and the area had been agricultural since 1911. In 1959, Del E. Webb began development of the Sun City area, a retirement community. Webb purchased the 20,000 acres of land for about $750 per acre. In 1960, Spur began an expansion program in which it grew from an operation of five acres to 115 acres. Webb began to experience sales resistance on the lots nearest Spur’s business because of strong odors. Nearly 1,300 lots could not be sold. Webb then filed suit alleging Spur’s operation was a nuisance because of flies and odors constantly drifting over Sun City. At the time of the suit, Spur was feeding between 20,000 and 30,000 head of cattle, which produced 35 to 40 pounds of wet manure per head per day, or over one million pounds per day. DECISION BELOW: The trial court enjoined Spur’s operations and Spur appealed. ISSUE ON APPEAL: Could Spur be enjoined from operating on the grounds of being a nuisance? Did Webb owe compensation? DECISION: The court held that the cattle operations created a public nuisance that needed to be enjoined. However, the court also noted that Del Webb had moved to the nuisance and Spur had begun operations in a remote area before the city had grown and that it could not anticipate that it would have caused a nuisance in that remote area at the time of its creation. Therefore, Del Webb was required to compensate Spur – an amount of $11 million was later agreed upon by the parties. Answers to Case Questions 1.What were the factors that made Spur's activities a nuisance? The court found that the flies and smell were a public nuisance that required an injunction. Too many people were affected by the smell and flies and the result was rendering the surrounding land unusable. 2.Should it make any difference that Spur was there first? The court finds that equity requires taking note of the fact that Spur was there first and could not have anticipated that, in that remote area, it would ever create a nuisance. However, the city moved out its way. The court must balance first-come rights with the resulting condemnation of surrounding property that occurs when growth occurs. 3.How does the court balance retirement communities and beef production, two of Arizona's biggest industries? Spur must be compensated – it must recoup the costs of moving to a more remote location. Webb gets to use the land free of the nuisance, but it must compensate those who were there first. CASE BRIEF 11.2 A.B. & S. Auto Service, Inc. v. South Shore Bank of Chicago 962 F.Supp. 1056 (N.D. Ill. 1997) FACTS: A.B. & S. Auto Service is owned by Jerry Bonner, an African-American. Bonner, on behalf of A.B. & S., applied for a loan at South Shore Bank. The application asked for a personal history and Bonner revealed an extensive arrest record. The loan officer approved the application, but the committee denied it based on his criminal record. South Shore Bank has made at least three business loans to applicants with criminal records, at least one of whom was an African-American. Bonner filed suit under the ECOA. ISSUE: Was South Shore’s denial a violation of the ECOA? DECISION: The denial was based on a criminal record, not race. There was a legitimate business reason for the denial. Answers to Case Questions 1.What, according to Mr. Bonner's expert, is the impact of considering criminal records of applicants? Did the evidence support the expert's testimony? There is disparate impact on African-Americans when banks examine criminal records as part of the credit process because they have more criminal records and, he asserts, would be denied more loans. No, the evidence showed the bank made loans to those with criminal records after following a thoughtful process. 2.Is the use of a criminal record in making a decision to extend credit a violation of the ECOA? Explain. No, a criminal record is a valid concern and the SBA requires it. A criminal record reflects character and integrity. 3.Do you think a criminal record is an indication of character? Explain. Have students discuss the role of previous criminal activity in business decisions. The SBA does see the two as related. Have them discuss whether the nature of the crime and their age at the time of the crime is important.