The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D is a race track located. P sued D alleging that the track constitutes a nuisance. A jury found that the track constitutes a nuisance, and the trial court entered a final judgment permanently enjoining D from conducting any races of motorized vehicles for either competition or practice. D appealed the permanent injunction and it was affirmed. D filed a motion to vacate, amend, or alter the permanent injunction in that P had sold his home located near the track. P testified that he has sold his home near the track. On approximately half the weekends each year, P and his family stay at his parents' residence near the track. P testified that his parents' home is his permanent residence. He receives mail at this address, including his cellular telephone bill, and has listed this address on his driver's license, voter registration, vehicle registration, most recent income tax return, and his wife's voter registration. P contends that an enforceable legal right to the affected property is not a prerequisite for asserting a nuisance claim, as a person's 'interests' need only be affected. The trial court found that a change in circumstances had occurred, but that it was not sufficient to warrant dissolution or modification of the injunction. D appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.