Illinois Compiled Statutes
740 ILCS 70/1 (2026)
It is the declared policy of the state to conserve and protect and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(740 ILCS 70/1)
(from Ch. 5, par. 1101)
Sec. 1.
It is the declared policy of the state to conserve and protect
and encourage the development and improvement of its agricultural land for
the production of food and other agricultural products. When nonagricultural
land uses extend into agricultural areas, farms often become the subject
of nuisance suits. As a result, farms are sometimes forced to cease operations.
Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm improvements.
It is the purpose of this Act to reduce the loss to the State of its agricultural
resources by limiting the circumstances under which farming operations
may be deemed to be a nuisance.
(Source: P.A. 82-509.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases, 2011–2020 · leading case: Marsh v. Sandstone North, LLC, 2020 IL App (4th) 190314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020).
Marsh v. Sandstone North, LLC, 2020 IL App (4th) 190314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2014). Section 2 of the Act defines the term “farm,” as “any parcel of land used for the growing and - 25 - harvesting of crops; for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock; for dairying or for any other agricultural or horticultural use or…”
Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 2012 IL 113569 (Ill. 2013). “OPINION ¶1 At issue in this case is whether the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 2006)) bars the plaintiffs’ nuisance lawsuit against a neighboring cattle farm where the plaintiffs acquired their property after the cattle farm had been in operation for more…”
Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 2011 IL App (2d) 100565 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Defendants appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) denying their motions for summary judgment and for a directed finding, where it found that the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (Act) (740 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 2006)) did not bar plaintiffs’ suit; (2) finding that the flies…”
The Vill. of LaFayette v. Brown, 2015 IL App (3d) 130445 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶3 Defendants appeal, arguing that the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2012)) preempts the Village’s ordinance No.”
The Vill. of LaFayette v. Brown, 2015 IL App (3d) 130445 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶3 Defendants appeal, arguing that the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2012)) preempts the Village’s ordinance No.”
Marsh v. Sandstone North, LLC, 2020 IL App (4th) 190314 (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” 740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2014). Section 2 of the Act defines the term “farm,” as “any parcel of land used for the growing and harvesting of crops; for the feeding, breeding and management of livestock; for dairying or for any other agricultural or horticultural use or combination…”
Toftoy v. Rosenwinkel, 961 N.E.2d 363 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “Defendants appeal, arguing that the trial court erred in: (1) denying their motions for summary judgment and for a directed finding, where it found that the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (Act) (740 ILCS 70/1 et seq. (West 2006)) did not bar plaintiffs' suit; (2) finding that the flies…”
Vill. of Chadwick v. Nelson, 2017 IL App (2d) 170064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “" 740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2016). As noted, the Act protects farms .”
Vill. of Chadwick v. Nelson, 2017 IL App (2d) 170064 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “” 740 ILCS 70/1 (West 2016). As noted, the Act protects farms.”
Baldwin: Carleton v. Vill. of Evergreen Park (N.D. Ill. 2020). “The amended complaint repleads the same federal claims, adds a claim under the Illinois Farm Nuisance Suit Act, 740 ILCS 70/1 et seq., and alleges additional facts.”
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.
|