Dobbs v. Wiggins

Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth District · 2010 · Property

Updated July 23, 2026

PropertyPrivate nuisanceInjunctionsEvidencebarking dogsnoise nuisanceuse and enjoyment of landmanifest weight

Facts

The plaintiffs lived on neighboring rural properties on Triton Lane for many years before Wiggins bought nearby land in 1995 and began raising, training, and kenneling bird dogs there. By the time relevant to trial, Wiggins had kept large numbers of dogs on the property, including 69 dogs counted in February 2009 and more than 100 in 2007 according to one witness. The plaintiffs testified that barking occurred for extended periods, at all hours of the day and night, could be heard inside their homes, and interfered with sleeping, opening windows, and outdoor activities. After a complaint in August 2007, Wiggins tried various noise-reduction measures and reduced some dogs, but the plaintiffs testified the barking remained a problem.

Issue

Whether the trial court's finding that Wiggins's barking dogs constituted a private nuisance was against the manifest weight of the evidence, whether the permanent injunction limiting him to six dogs was overly broad, and whether the trial court improperly admitted audio recordings of the barking.

Rule

A private nuisance is a substantial invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land that is intentional or negligent and unreasonable. In determining nuisance, the effect on a reasonable person controls, and the court must balance the gravity of the harm against the utility of the defendant's use and the suitability of the location. Even when a nuisance exists, injunctive relief is not automatic, and any injunction must be no more extensive than reasonably necessary to protect the plaintiff and must not be so broad as to unnecessarily prevent the defendant from exercising his rights. Sound recordings are admissible when a proper foundation shows they fairly and accurately reflect what the witness heard.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In rural Missouri, Owen Carter runs an outdoor boarding kennel on his land outside Springfield. His neighbors, Talia and Ben Moreno, testify that the dogs bark in repeated waves for long stretches, can be heard inside their house even with the windows closed, and regularly interrupt sleep and backyard meals.

If the trial judge credits the Morenos' testimony, which is the strongest basis for finding a substantial invasion of their use and enjoyment of land?

Explanation. A private nuisance requires a substantial invasion of another's interest in the use and enjoyment of land. The majority held that testimony that barking was audible inside the home, disrupted sleep, and curtailed ordinary outdoor activities was sufficient because substantiality is judged by the effect on a normal person of ordinary habits and sensibilities, not by automatic rural-area rules, proof of diminished value, or nonstop barking by every animal.