## Facts

- A property owner operated a horse stable in New Orleans to support a horse-drawn carriage business serving tourists in the French Quarter.
- Neighboring property owners and tenants lived adjacent to or near the stable and complained of offensive conditions (including odors and pest problems) interfering with use and enjoyment of their property.
- After the operator acquired the property, a public health official reported ordinance violations related to sanitation and manure handling; later inspections found the premises compliant with city ordinances.
- Plaintiffs sued to permanently enjoin operation of the stable and the keeping of horses on the premises.
- The trial court granted a permanent injunction fully prohibiting stable operations; the court of appeal affirmed.
- The state supreme court granted review limited to whether a total prohibitory injunction was proper rather than a narrower injunction regulating the operation.

## Issues

1. Whether a court applying Louisiana Civil Code arts. 667–669 may permanently prohibit a lawful business activity as a nuisance when the nuisance can be abated by regulating the manner and scope of operations.
2. Whether the injunction should have been limited to restraining objectionable conditions instead of entirely barring the keeping of horses and operation of the stable.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed in part and amended the injunction.
- The Court held that a blanket prohibition on operating the stable was improper on the record presented.
- The Court ordered a modified injunction allowing continued operation subject to restrictions designed to prevent unreasonable interference with neighbors (including operational limits and sanitation-related requirements).

## Legal Principles

- Under Louisiana Civil Code arts. 667–669, an owner’s use of property, though lawful, may be restrained when it causes unreasonable and substantial interference with neighbors’ use and enjoyment.
- The annoyances listed in Civil Code art. 669 (e.g., smoke, odors, noise) are illustrative; courts may regulate other activities that similarly disturb neighbors.
- Injunctive relief in nuisance disputes should be no broader than necessary; when feasible, courts should regulate and restrain the harmful aspects of an activity rather than prohibit the activity entirely.

## Conclusion

The court determined that, although stable operations could create actionable disturbances, the proper remedy was a narrowed injunction regulating the manner and scope of operations to abate unreasonable interference, not a total and permanent shutdown of the stable.


Robichaux v. Huppenbauer, 245 So. 2d 385 (La. 1971)