This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be summarily abated.[32] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| As for a nuisance classified according to the object or objects that it affects, a nuisance may either be: (a) a public nuisance, i.e., one which "affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal"; or (b) a private nuisance, or one "that is not included in the foregoing definition" which, in jurisprudence, is one which "violates only private rights and produces damages to but one or a few persons."[35] | |||||
|
2016-01-11 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| A nuisance may also be classified as to whether it is susceptible to a legal summary abatement, in which case, it may either be: (a) a nuisance per se, when it affects the immediate safety of persons and property, which may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity;[36] or, (b) a nuisance per accidens, which "depends upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in law constitute a nuisance;"[37] it may only be so proven in a hearing conducted for that purpose and may not be summarily abated without judicial intervention.[38] | |||||