This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps own 159 acres of land. They raise cattle, grow several different crops, and have a large pecan orchard. In 1968, D started an operation for the recovery of lead from used automobile batteries. D's smelter was placed on the west edge of their property, that part nearest to Ps' property. D installed a filter system. If properly installed and used, an efficient filter will recover over 99 percent of the lead emitted. Twice D's smelting plant has failed to function properly, resulting in the filter catching fire on both occasions. There is a dispute as to the efficiency of D's filter. Ps allege that their property has been damaged by a dangerous accumulation of lead particulates and sulfoxide deposits on their property. D claims that its plant is duly licensed pursuant to the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act. Ps sued for trespass as the land was now unsuitable for raising cattle and food. The court ruled for D simply because D was a lawful duly licensed enterprise that has complied with Alabama law. It also held that because Ps’ property had increased in value it could not recover. Ps appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.