Some may say that all litigation is a nuisance, but that's not what this post is about.  Instead, this is about litigation related to land uses that amount to nuisances for neighboring landowners. 

Once upon a time, the Crown recognized that it was a "nuisance" for villagers to throw garbage and waste into the streets.  What was offensive in one man's house was just as offensive to all in the public streets and rivers.  So, in 1388, the Parliament passed the first known nuisance law. The "Dung Law" spoke in Olde English to today's problems,

"[f]or that so much Dung and Filth of the Garbage and Intrails as well as of Beasts killed, as of other Corruptions, be cast and put in Ditches, Rivers and other Waters, . . . that the Air there is greatly corrupt and infect, and many Maladies and other intolerable Diseases do daily happen, . . . to the great Annoyance, Damage and Peril of the Inhabitants, Dwellers, Repairers, and Travellers . . .; all they which do cast and lay all such Annoyances . . . in Waters . . . shall cause them utterly to be removed, avoided, and carried away . . . every one upon Pain to lose and to forfeit to our Lord the King . . ..

Missouri law largely embraces the ancient concept embodied in the Dung Law.  The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that "an owner may use his property as he desires recognizing that same right in another." See Bower v. Hog Builders Inc., 461 S.W.2d 784, 793 (Mo. 1971).  Basically, a nuisance is a land use that unreasonably interferes with another's reasonable use of his or her land.  And this brings us back to another longstanding concept deeply rooted in British law -- and in Missouri law -- that "a man's home is his castle."  

Interestingly enough, a nuisance lawsuit is about preserving and protecting a landowner's property rights.  The law precludes one from using his land in such a way that it unreasonably interferes with another's right to the peaceful use and quiet enjoyment of her property. 

Should this centuries-old rule still be the law of the land?  Can you think of examples where the public good should trump one landowner's right to the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of her property?  More on our property rights later.