G & D Enterprises v. Liebelt
- G & D Enterprises, Plaintiff and Appellant
Marrilynn A. Liebelt, Defendant and Appellee
- Case Type
- CIVIL APPEAL : TORTS (NEGLIGENCE, LIAB., NUIS.)
- Appeal From
Case No. 2017-CV-00179
South Central Judicial District, Mercer County
Daniel James Borgen
Parties' Statement of Issues
1. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment against G&D for its claim of private nuisance when deposition testimony supported G&D’s claims of harm.
2. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment against G&D for its claim of civil trespass when the district court did not address the actual allegations G&D made against Liebelt.
3. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment against G&D for its request for permanent injunctive relief when it applied the preliminary injunction standard.
I. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment against G & D Enterprises for its claim of private nuisance.
II. Whether the district court erred by granting summary judgment against G & D Enterprises for its claim of civil trespass.
III. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying injunctive relief.
G & D Enterprises appeals after the district court granted summary judgment dismissing its claims against Merrilynn Liebelt.
G & D and Liebelt own adjacent properties, both of which were previously owned by one owner. Before either party owned the property, a water line had been installed. In 2015, G & D discovered the water line while digging on its property. The water line crosses a portion of G & D’s property and supplies water to Liebelt’s residence. In November 2017, G & D filed a summons and complaint in the district court, asserting claims against Liebelt for private nuisance and civil trespass and seeking damages and injunctive relief. Liebelt answered, denying the allegations and stating G & D is not entitled to any damages, injunctive relief, or recovery. In March 2019, Liebelt moved the court for summary judgment. After a June 2019 hearing, the court granted Liebelt’s motion.
On appeal, G & D argues the district court erred in dismissing its private nuisance claim because deposition testimony supported its claims of harm and erred in dismissing its civil trespass claim because the court did not address the actual allegations made against Liebelt. G & D further contends the court applied the wrong standard in dismissing its request for permanent injunctive relief.
(Note: Attachments may not be available for recently filed cases and/or confidential documents.)
|Seq. #||Filing Date||Description||Attachment|
|1||08/22/2019||NOTICE OF APPEAL : 08/22/2019|
|2||08/22/2019||ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT : 09/04/2019|
|3||08/28/2019||Rec'd $125.00 filing fee (receipt #27356)|
|4||08/28/2019||NOT. OF FILING NOT. OF APPEAL AND PROOF OF SERV.|
|5||08/28/2019||Notice served on Mark A. Kaffar and Erica M. Woehl|
|6||09/24/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED SEPTEMBER 23, 2019 (ENTRY NOS. 1-88)|
|7||10/10/2019||ELEC. RECORD ON APPEAL DATED OCTOBER 9, 2019 (ENTRY NOS.1-21, 23-89)|
|8||10/23/2019||ELECTRONIC TRANSCRIPT DATED JUNE 7, 2019|
|9||10/23/2019||C.O.S. (tra 6-7-19)|
|12||12/02/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellant|
|13||12/06/2019||Rec'd 6 copies of ATB & ATA from Central Duplicating|
|14||12/16/2019||Rec'd $51 for ATA (over page limit) (receipt #27470)|
|15||12/23/2019||Notice of Appearance and Withdrawal of Counsel|
|17||12/23/2019||Oral Argument Request by Appellee|
|18||01/02/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to AEB|
|19||01/07/2020||Rec'd 6 copies of AEB form Central Duplicating|
|21||01/15/2020||Rec'd non-substantive corrections to RYB|
|22||01/22/2020||Rec'd 6 copies of RYB from Central Duplicating|
|23||01/23/2020||NOTICE OF ORAL ARGUMENT SENT|
|24||02/18/2020||APPEARANCES: Mark A. Kaffar/Chris A. Edison|
|25||02/18/2020||ARGUED: Mark A. Kaffar/Chris A. Edison|
|26||02/18/2020||ORAL ARGUMENT WEBCAST|