## Facts

- Kingfisher Wind, LLC developed and constructed the Kingfisher Wind Project, a 149-turbine wind farm in Kingfisher and Canadian Counties, Oklahoma.
- Individual plaintiffs owned property in or near the project area; a nonprofit, Oklahoma Wind Action Association (OWAA), also sued.
- Plaintiffs alleged the wind farm constituted an anticipatory nuisance based on predicted impacts including adverse health effects, noise, shadow flicker, and aesthetic interference with use and enjoyment of property.
- Plaintiffs sought permanent injunctive relief requiring a 1.7-mile setback of the project from any plaintiff-owned property.
- Plaintiffs did not seek a preliminary injunction during construction.
- While the case was pending, Kingfisher completed construction (approximately $450 million) and began operating the project.

## Issues

1. Whether OWAA had organizational or associational standing to pursue anticipatory nuisance claims.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence showing a reasonable probability (not speculation) of substantial future injury or interference sufficient to support an anticipatory nuisance claim and justify permanent injunctive relief.
3. Whether equitable considerations, including the balance of hardships after project completion and operation, supported or defeated the requested permanent injunction.

## Decision

- The court denied Kingfisher’s motion for summary judgment challenging OWAA’s standing.
- The court granted Kingfisher’s motion for summary judgment on the merits of the anticipatory nuisance claim.
- The court denied the requested permanent injunction, including the 1.7-mile setback.

## Legal Principles

- Standing is a threshold requirement that must be satisfied for a court to exercise jurisdiction; an association may proceed when standing requirements are met at the summary-judgment stage.
- Under Oklahoma anticipatory nuisance principles, plaintiffs must present evidence establishing a reasonable probability of injury; conjectural or speculative harm is insufficient.
- Permanent injunctive relief is an extraordinary remedy; a plaintiff must show likely harm and must also satisfy equitable considerations.
- In determining whether to grant an injunction, courts consider the balance of hardships; the completion and operation of a costly project can weigh heavily against mandatory or prohibitory injunctive relief, particularly where plaintiffs did not pursue timely interim relief.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the nonprofit association to remain in the case on standing grounds but rejected the anticipatory nuisance claim because plaintiffs’ predicted injuries were not shown with a reasonable probability beyond speculation and because the equities, including the hardship of enjoining a completed operating wind project, weighed against permanent injunctive relief.


Walker v. Kingfisher Wind, LLC, 2016 WL 5947307 (W.D. Okla. 2016)