Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

damagesstatuteappealcompliancerespondent

damagesappealcompliancerespondent

Related Cases

Goldstein v. Peacemaker Properties, LLC, 241 W.Va. 720, 828 S.E.2d 276

Facts

Petitioners Ben and Diane Goldstein own property in Frederick County, Virginia, and filed a nuisance complaint against Respondents Peacemaker National Training Center and Peacemaker Properties in 2015. They claimed that noise from the shooting range, which began operations in 2011, substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their property. The West Virginia Legislature amended a statute in 2017 to bar nuisance claims against shooting ranges in compliance with local noise ordinances, which the circuit court applied retroactively to dismiss the Goldsteins' claims.

Petitioners bought property in rural Frederick County, Virginia, in 1976. They designed and built a home on the land, and from 1983 until 2010, Mr. Goldstein commuted from the property to Washington, D.C., for work. Respondent Peacemaker Properties, LLC (Peacemaker Properties) owns a 501-acre parcel of land near Petitioners’ property, straddling the Berkley County, West Virginia, and Frederick County, Virginia, line. In 2011, Peacemaker National Training Center (the Training Center), a large complex of shooting ranges, commenced operations on Peacemaker Properties’ land.

Issue

Did the circuit court err in applying the 2017 amendment to West Virginia Code § 61-6-23 retroactively to bar the Goldsteins' nuisance claim for injunctive relief, and did it err in denying their claim for money damages?

Rule

The 2017 amendment to West Virginia Code § 61-6-23 prohibits nuisance claims against shooting ranges if they are in compliance with local noise ordinances, and such amendments can be applied retroactively.

Analysis

The court found that the Goldsteins' nuisance claim for injunctive relief was barred by the 2017 amendment because the shooting range was operating in compliance with Berkeley County's noise ordinance, which exempted shooting ranges from its limitations. However, the court recognized that the Goldsteins had a vested right to pursue their claim for money damages, as it accrued prior to the amendment, and thus could not be retroactively barred.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the Goldsteins' claim for injunctive relief but reversed the dismissal of their claim for money damages, remanding the case for further proceedings.

Who won?

Respondents prevailed on the injunctive relief claim due to the statutory protection provided to shooting ranges in compliance with local noise ordinances.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Hubbard v. Administrator, E.P.A., 982 F.2d 531, 299 U.S.App.D.C. 143, 61 USLW 2345

Birchler v. Castello Land Co., Inc., 133 Wash.2d 106, 942 P.2d 968

Resurrection Bay Conservation Alliance v. City of Seward, Alaska, 640 F.3d 1087, 72 ERC 2157, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5944, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 7173

Management Capital, L.L.C. v. F.A.F., Inc., 209 A.3d 1162

Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 913 F.2d 1064, 53 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1481, 62 Ed. Law Rep. 894