## Facts

- Quality Egg Farm, Inc. operated an intensive egg production facility in Bristol, Wisconsin, beginning in 1967 and expanding to roughly 140,000 chickens by 1974, with plans for further expansion.
- The operation produced about 15 tons of chicken manure per day, stored and removed in ways that contributed to odor and fly conditions.
- Before operations began, agricultural experts advised that locating the facility near residences and a grade school was ill-advised; the owner proceeded despite these warnings.
- Nearby residents within several miles complained of severe odors described as nauseating, pungent, and unbearable, with reported physical effects such as illness and headaches.
- Residents also reported a constant fly infestation attributed to the manure and farm operations.
- The State sought injunctive relief to abate the odors and flies as a public nuisance, not damages for individual landowners.

## Issues

1. What constitutes a public nuisance under Wisconsin law as distinguished from a private nuisance?
2. Whether the evidence of odors and flies from the operation could support a finding of public nuisance.
3. Whether the Attorney General had authority to bring an action to abate the alleged nuisance on behalf of the State.

## Decision

- The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals.
- The court held the court of appeals erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that no public nuisance was established.
- The court ruled the evidence could support a finding that the odors and flies unreasonably interfered with public rights in health and comfort.
- The case was remanded to the circuit court for further findings and proceedings consistent with the clarified public-nuisance standards.

## Legal Principles

- A public nuisance is an unreasonable interference with a right common to the general public, including public health, safety, peace, comfort, or convenience.
- A nuisance may be “public” even if the number of directly affected persons is limited; the focus is the public character of the right invaded and whether there is a common injury to a considerable number of persons.
- The State, through the Attorney General, may maintain an action to abate a public nuisance when the evidence supports that characterization, even if affected individuals also could pursue private nuisance remedies.
- Courts evaluating public nuisance consider the severity, persistence, and community-wide reach of the interference, not merely the number of witnesses who testify.

## Conclusion

The Wisconsin Supreme Court held that severe, ongoing odors and fly infestations from a large egg-production operation could be found to constitute a public nuisance affecting public health and comfort, and it reinstated the State’s ability to seek injunctive abatement by reversing the court of appeals and remanding for further proceedings.


State v. Quality Egg Farm, Inc., 104 Wis. 2d 506, 311 N.W.2d 650 (Wis. 1981)