What defenses can be raised in a public nuisance case?

In a public nuisance case, various defenses can be effectively raised, and the correct answer encompasses them all, highlighting the complexity of nuisance law.

Lack of standing is a foundational defense in nuisance cases. Public nuisance claims are typically brought by governmental entities or individuals with a specific injury different from the general public. If a defendant can demonstrate that the plaintiff lacks standing, the court may dismiss the case.

Primary jurisdiction refers to the principle that some issues should be settled by an administrative agency or another institution before a court can hear the case. In situations where a regulatory body has the expertise and authority to address the nuisance, a court may defer to that body, rendering the public nuisance claim inappropriate at that time.

The defense of activity being licensed or permitted implies that if the activity in question has been legally authorized or regulated by a government agency, it may not constitute a nuisance. This defense argues that compliance with laws or permits indicates that the activity is not unreasonable or harmful in the legal context, offering protection against liability.

Recognizing the interplay of these defenses is crucial for understanding how they can operate together to impact the outcome of a public nuisance claim. Thus, the choice indicating all of the above defenses is correct, as it accurately reflects the range of potential defenses available