EECS 491
Steven Koules
1/19/01
Professor Rockman
Lecture I - Assignment
Answer each question in one, two or three paragraphs at the most.
1. Do we need man-made laws? Why? What purpose do they serve? Is there a
present law you would like to see changed? Why?
 We need man-made laws in order to protect the rights of others, so
that the interests of more dominant (economically, politically,
socially, etc.) parties don’t overrule those basic individual rights
which society has deemed appropriate and conferred to each of its
constituents.
2. What does stare decisis mean in the law? What is the significance of stare decisis?
 This term refers to a primary embodiment of Common Law, which is
built on prior case decision in its resolution of legal disputes. It
signifies the practice of using case law as precedent for reaching
most if not all of its judiciary decision.
3. Party A owns a factory that emits large quantities of really foul-smelling smoke.
People in a nearby housing developed are amazed by the odors when the wind is
out of the north and west. No one has been made ill by the smoke, but it’s
become increasingly difficult to sell houses in the path of the smoke. Party B, a
resident of the housing development, lodged a Complaint against A for causing a
public nuisance. What type of relief should Party B seek, and in what type of court
(law or equity)? What would be the probable result, in your estimation? Consider
the following in thinking through your answer: (1) how do you balance the
citizen’s right to clean air with the business’ right to operate in a lawful fashion; (2)
the factory employees many people and a shut-down of the factory would be
harmful to the economy; and (3) what possible alternative solutions to the
problem should the court consider.
 Part B should seek relief in a court of equity. Although no real
damages have been done, the equity court has the ability to issue an
injunction against Party A, which could prevent further production of
smoke until such time as it may be ascertained whether or not the
foul smelling smoke may represent a real health risk or other real
damage to the people of the nearby housing development.
The only exception I can see to this, was if Party B had tried to sell
his house and could produce witness testimony to the fact that the
potential buyer had either substantially reduced his bid on the
property or refused to consider buying the property after learning of
Party A’s factory smoke. In this case, I think it could be argued that
Party B had suffered real damages and therefore should have his case
considered in civil court.
 I think that if Party B’s health is in danger from the factory smoke,
than his basic Constitutional right to the pursuit of life etc. is in
violation and should supercede the economic considerations of Party
A, regardless of the number employees. After all, those same rights,
which Party A’s employees also possess, would almost surely be in
similar jeopardy. In this case I think Party A should be forced to
either modify his production procedures so as to render the smoke
harmless or cease operation.
If Party A’s smoke was proven to pose no health risk to the public or
his employees, then an economic consideration might be weighed. It
might be more economically attractive for him to purchase the land
from Party B’s development or it might be argued that it is in the
public’s best interest for Party A’s factory to continue production, in
which case the law might provide for municipal, state or federal
condemnation and annexation of the land after reasonable
compensation has been provided to the development residents. This
scenario reminded me of O’Hare airport and the City of Chicago’s on
going battle with local residents over airport noise and pollution.