Both majority and dissent point to the historical basis and purpose of law, specifically the tort of

Question:

Both majority and dissent point to the historical basis and purpose of law, specifically the tort of public nuisance. How would allowing this case to go forward distort the historical tort, according to the majority? How would it further the “corrective” and “preventive” functions of the tort?

Fantastic news! We've Found the answer you've been seeking!