## Facts

- H. Samuels Company, Inc. operated a junk and metal salvage yard in Portage, Wisconsin, on a block used for industrial activity for decades.
- The business expanded scrap-processing operations and used heavy equipment (including cranes with magnets, a guillotine shear, conveyors, and a hammer mill) that created significant noise and ground vibration.
- The site was zoned heavy industrial, but it was adjacent to areas zoned for residential single-family use and lighter commercial/industrial uses.
- Nearby residents complained that the noise and vibration shook windows and household items, disrupted sleep, interfered with ordinary residential enjoyment, and caused related personal and household impacts.
- Portage had a municipal ordinance setting maximum permissible noise and vibration levels by zone.
- The State presented expert evidence that Samuels repeatedly exceeded the ordinance’s limits, including limits applicable to heavy industrial districts.
- The City did not pursue criminal enforcement of the ordinance; Samuels claimed it had taken steps to reduce noise (including limiting night operations) and intended additional reductions.
- The State sued under statutory authority to abate public nuisances, seeking an injunction restraining ordinance violations during 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; the trial court dismissed, reasoning criminal prosecution should come first and emphasizing the business’s longevity and mitigation efforts.

## Issues

1. Whether repeated violations of a municipal noise and vibration ordinance by an industrial salvage operation can constitute a public nuisance subject to injunctive relief.
2. Whether the absence of criminal prosecutions and the lawful, long-standing nature of the business bar equitable abatement.
3. What scope of injunction is appropriate when the nuisance is measured by ordinance standards and affects neighboring residential areas.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed and remanded with directions to grant injunctive relief.
- The court held that Samuels’ repeated ordinance violations, coupled with substantial interference experienced by nearby residents, constituted a public nuisance.
- The court ruled equity could enjoin the nuisance even though the conduct also violated an ordinance enforceable through criminal process and even though no criminal prosecutions had been brought.
- The court directed entry of a limited injunction restraining Samuels from violating the ordinance during 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

## Legal Principles

- Repeated violations of a municipal noise/vibration ordinance, when they substantially interfere with public rights and the community’s reasonable use and enjoyment of property, may constitute a public nuisance.
- An ordinance violation is not automatically a nuisance per se, but ordinance standards provide an objective benchmark for assessing unreasonable interference and shaping relief.
- A court of equity may enjoin ongoing nuisance conduct even if the same conduct is subject to criminal or ordinance penalties, so long as the injunction is aimed at preventing continuing harm rather than substituting civil process for criminal punishment.
- The lawful character and long duration of a business are not controlling defenses to a public nuisance claim; they may be considered in tailoring the remedy.

## Conclusion

The court concluded that persistent, ordinance-measured noise and vibration from an industrial salvage operation adjacent to residential property amounted to a public nuisance and required a narrowly tailored injunction to prevent continuing harm during evening and early-morning hours, notwithstanding the business’s longevity and the lack of criminal enforcement.


State v. H. Samuels Co., 211 N.W.2d 417 (Wis. 1973)