Download Maykut v Plasko - Case Brief - Constitutional Law | PSCI 3345 and more Assignments Political Science in PDF only on Docsity! Taylor Hathaway 904563868 Maykut v. Plasko (Sup. Ct. of Conn.1976) Procedural Posture: The trial court granted a permanent injunction against the use of the “corn-cannon” and $25 to Maykut. Plasko appealed this ruling and the appellate court raised the injunction. Facts: Plasko shot a cannon, to keep birds away from his corn, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily and the device sounded in about five minute intervals. Maykut lives in a residence about 600 feet away from the farm. The plaintiff complained about the noise to the police is the summer one 1971 and brought action against Plasko in 1972. Issue(s): Should the trial court consider the permit that Plasko possessed? The issue in the appellate court was whether or not the trial court considered the weighing test or not. Relief Sought: In the trial court the plaintiff was seeking that an injunction be placed against the use of the “corn-cannon” and they were seeking damages Defense or Response: Plasko (Appellee) ask the appellate court to remove the injunction against the use of the “corn-cannon” because of the fact that he had obtained a permit to use it and that they never considered the weighing test or the General Statutes. Holding: The appellate court temporarily dissolved the injunction because they have found no evidence that the weighing test had been applied by the trial court. Reasoning: The law imposes on every property owner a duty “to make a reasonable use of his own property so as to occasion no unnecessary damage or annoyance to his neighbor”. Determining reasonableness “is essentially a weighing process, involving a comparative evaluation of conflicting interests in various situations”. The appellate court had reason to believe that the trial court did not use any kind of weighing test. Rule: The Supreme Court examined the records and found that the trial court did use to proper weighing test. In its memorandum the trial court makes specific reference to the weighing test. The Supreme Court found that the trial court considered not only the interest of the plaintiff but of the defendant as well. The Supreme Court agreed with the trial court and found that if the exsistence of an enjoyable nuisance was properly found by the trial courts, it was not necessary to consider the validity of General Statutes and a provision and amendment of the zoning regulations of the town of Trumbull.
