AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

The Petitioners, who are sportsmen, regularly engaged in trap shooting at a private trap range near the municipal airport in Clovis, New Mexico. The Respondents, who own adjacent property, allegedly made false complaints to the Curry County Sheriff's Department about the legality of the trap range, leading to temporary suspensions of its use for investigations. The Petitioners claimed these actions were intended to harass them and sought relief for public nuisance, damages, and an order to prevent further interference (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• District Court, Curry County: The court dismissed the Petitioners' claim for public nuisance under Rule 1-012(B)(6) NMRA 1997 for failure to state a claim (para 4).

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioners-Appellants: Argued that trap shooting is a public right and that the Respondents' false complaints to law enforcement interfered with this right, constituting a public nuisance. They sought abatement of the nuisance, damages, and an order to prevent further interference (paras 3, 7).
• Respondents-Appellees: Contended that trap shooting is not a public right and that their complaints to law enforcement were lawful and did not constitute a public nuisance (paras 7, 9).

Legal Issues

• Did the Petitioners state a valid claim for public nuisance under NMSA 1978, Section 30-8-1(B)?
• Did the Respondents' complaints to law enforcement constitute interference with a public right without lawful authority?

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Petitioners' claim for public nuisance (para 13).

Reasons

Per Wechsler J. (Apodaca and Pickard JJ. concurring):

• The Court held that public nuisance requires interference with a public right, which is a right common to all members of the public, such as public health, safety, or morals. The Petitioners' use of private property for recreational trap shooting did not qualify as a public right (paras 6-8).
• The Court rejected the Petitioners' argument that trap shooting is inherently a public right, noting that the activity occurred on private property and was not open to the general public (para 8).
• The Court found that the Respondents' complaints to law enforcement were lawful and part of the legal system's reliance on citizen reports. Such complaints, even if mistaken, do not constitute a public nuisance unless they lack lawful authority, which was not established in this case (paras 9-12).
• The Court concluded that the Petitioners failed to allege facts sufficient to meet the statutory requirements for a public nuisance claim under Section 30-8-1(B) (para 13).