Tichenor Case Summary

In Tichenor, the court found substantial harm. Id. at 178. In Tichenor, the plaintiff’s were unable to perform yard work, plant flowers or enjoy their porch because of the volume of the dogs’ barks. Id. at 175. The court reasoned the volume of the noise was more than a slight inconvenience because a normal person should be able to use their property at will without being interrupted by a neighbor. Id. In Tichenor, the barking dogs would prevent the plaintiff’s from falling asleep, and staying asleep most nights. Id. The court reasoned that sleep loss was more than a petty annoyance because a normal person’s health should not be affected by a neighbor’s hobby. Id. In Tichenor, the defendant’s kept up to sixteen dogs at one time. Id. In Tichenor, …show more content…
Like Tichenor, where the volume of the dogs prevented yard work and enjoyment of outdoor facilities, here the noise level prevents the neighbors to use porches, and enjoy the of weather. Like Tichenor, where the court reasoned the constant barking was more than a normal person would expect, and thus a slight inconvenience, a court here would reason the display was more than a slight inconvenience because a normal person would not expect their evening activities to be interrupted or changed due to a neighbor. Like Tichenor, where the dogs barking interrupted plaintiff’s sleep, here the plaintiff’s all complain the combination of lights and noise disrupt their sleep. Like Tichenor, where the court reasoned the normal person should not experience sleep loss due to the barking dogs because it was more than a petty annoyance, a court here would the normal person would reason the lights and music would be more than a petty annoyance because disruption of sleep is overtly annoying, and affects all realms of daily life. Like Tichenor, where the sixteen barking dogs were unbearable, here the extravagant lighting and noise display was unbearable. Like Tichenor, where the court reasoned the normal person would expect noise from a few dogs and that sixteen barking dogs was intolerable, a court here would reason that the normal person standard is violated because a normal person would expect some …show more content…
Like Racine, where the unfavorable noises coming from the gun club decreased the plaintiff’s rental value, here the plaintiff’s children were afraid to play in their yard because of the strange people walking through the neighborhood to see the display. Like Racine, where the court reasoned a normal person would be more than slightly inconvenienced because of a decrease in rental value, a court here would reason the neighbor’s children being afraid to play in their own yard was more than a slight inconvenience because the normal person should feel a sense of safety in their neighborhood. Like Racine, where the noise from the gun club was unremitting and increased overtime, here the display increased over time, which interrupted the neighbor’s life and ability to leave their house during the evening hours for five months. Like Racine, where the court reasoned that the normal person would find the constancy and increase of the noise was more than a petty annoyance, a court here would reason that interruption of daily life every evening was more than a petty annoyance because a normal person would expect to be able to leave their own driveways at any time. Like Racine, where in the beginning the noise was infrequent and significantly less, but grew with popularity, here popularity increased causing the display to become more elaborate. Like Racine, where the court reasoned the intensity of