Idaho Code

Idaho Code § 22-4503 (2026)

Agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof not a nuisance — Exception.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IClegislature.idaho.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof not a nuisance — Exception.

No agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or about the surrounding nonagricultural activities after it has been in operation for more than one (1) year, when the operation, facility or expansion was not a nuisance at the time it began or was constructed. The provisions of this section shall not apply when a nuisance results from the improper or negligent operation of an agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 1983–2018 · leading case: McVicars v. Christensen, 320 P.3d 948 (Idaho 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

McVicars v. Christensen, 320 P.3d 948 (Idaho 2014). · cites it 16× “To accomplish this intent, I.C. § 22-4503 outlines an exception to the private nuisance statutes in specific circumstances: 2 No agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or…”

Whitted v. Canyon Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 44 P.3d 1173 (Idaho 2002). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 22-4503. The Act prevents the adoption of ordinances or resolutions declaring as a nuisance any agricultural operations operated in accordance with generally recognized agricultural practices.”

Crea v. Crea, 16 P.3d 922 (Idaho 2000). · cites it 4× “I.C. § 22-4503. In Payne , this Court concluded that the RTFA did not protect all existing agricultural operations from being declared a nuisance.”

Payne v. Skaar, 900 P.2d 1352 (Idaho 1995). · cites it 5× “I.C. § 22-4503. Skaar argues that under the RTFA, its operation cannot be declared a nuisance because it (1) has been in operation for more than one year; (2) was not a nuisance when the operation began; and (3) was not operated improperly or negligently.”

Morgan HONOMICHL, Robin Honomichl, Timothy Honomichl, Deb Chance, Kara Chance, Karen Jo Frescoln, Mike Merrill, & Q.H., Appellee, v. VALLEY VIEW SWINE, LLC & JBS Live Pork, LLC, Appellants., 914 N.W.2d 223 (Iowa 2018). “); Idaho Code Ann. § 22-4503 (West, Westlaw through 2nd Reg.”

Carpenter v. Double R Cattle Co., Inc., 669 P.2d 643 (Idaho Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “See I.C. § 22-4503. In contrast, the pleadings in the present case disclose that the feedlot is alleged to be a nuisance, not because of changes in surrounding non-agricultural uses, but because of an expansion of the feedlot itself.”

McVicars v. Christensen (Idaho 2013). · cites it 8× “To accomplish this intent, I.C. § 22-4503 outlines an exception to the private nuisance statutes in specific circumstances: 2 No agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or…”

McVicars v. Christensen (Idaho 2014). · cites it 8× “To accomplish this intent, I.C. § 22-4503 outlines an exception to the private nuisance statutes in specific circumstances: 2 No agricultural operation, agricultural facility or expansion thereof shall be or become a nuisance, private or public, by any changed conditions in or…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.