Pope v. Homes

1 Citing case

  1. R.R. Yalamanchili v. Mousa

    316 S.W.3d 33 (Tex. App. 2010)   Cited 23 times
    Holding "a request for a permanent injunction is not a separate claim but merely an item of equitable relief. . . . The only two claims in the petition are for nuisance and trespass, and Mousa moved for and was granted summary judgment on both of these claims. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting a final summary judgment."

    Conversely, a nuisance should be deemed permanent if it is sufficiently constant or regular (no matter how long between occurrences) that future impact can be reasonably evaluated.Schneider, 147 S.W.3d at 280-81; see also Mitchell v. Timmerman, No. 03-08-00320-CV, 2008 WL 5423268, at *6 (Tex. App.-Austin Dec. 31, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (holding that flooding from every significant rain is permanent nuisance); Pope v. John Kiella Homes, No. 07-06-0146-CV, 2008 WL 1903332, at *3-4 (Tex.App.-Amarillo Apr. 30, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) (finding that flooding following heavy rains is a permanent nuisance). In addition, the structure creating the runoff, Mousa's shopping center, is a permanent structure, and such a permanent source is presumed to result in a permanent nuisance.