## Facts

- Property owners and residents on Irving Street in Hartford sought to prevent operation of a halfway house in a three-family dwelling at 10–12 Irving Street.
- The owner planned to use the house as a temporary residence for up to fifteen selected parolees as part of a supervised rehabilitation program.
- The program excluded sex offenders, drug addicts, and alcoholics under then-current policy; residents were to have outside employment and live under supervision of a trained resident director.
- The proposed use was lawful and conformed to applicable zoning restrictions.
- The neighborhood was primarily residential, with multiple three-story, three-family homes and many children regularly present outdoors.

## Issues

1. Whether operating a supervised halfway house for selected parolees in a residential neighborhood, in conformity with zoning, constituted a nuisance in fact.
2. Whether injunctive relief may issue when the claimed harms rest primarily on neighbors’ fears of future criminal acts and apprehension about reduced property values.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the judgment granting a permanent injunction.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to prove a nuisance in fact.
- The injunction was vacated, and judgment was directed for the defendant, permitting the proposed use.

## Legal Principles

- Injunctive relief is an extraordinary equitable remedy and should be granted only with highly satisfactory reasons.
- An injunction should not be issued merely because of a plaintiff’s fears or apprehensions.
- Private nuisance requires proof of an unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of land under the circumstances and in light of the locality.
- Zoning compliance does not conclusively defeat a nuisance claim, but it is a relevant contextual factor in assessing reasonableness.
- Speculative fears of future misconduct and subjective concerns about property values, without concrete evidence of unreasonable interference, are insufficient to establish a nuisance in fact.

## Conclusion

A lawful, zoning-compliant, supervised halfway house for screened parolees could not be enjoined as a nuisance in fact based only on speculative fears of future crime and generalized, subjective concerns about property-value effects; equity required a demonstrable, unreasonable interference with neighboring property rights.


Nicholson v. Connecticut Half-Way House, Inc., 153 Conn. 507, 218 A.2d 383 (Conn. 1966)