Sec. 9. (a) This section does not apply if a nuisance
results from the negligent operation of an agricultural or industrial
operation or its appurtenances.
(b) The general assembly declares that it is the policy of the state to
conserve, protect, and encourage the development and improvement of
its agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural
products. The general assembly finds that when nonagricultural land
uses extend into agricultural areas, agricultural operations often
become the subject of nuisance suits. As a result, agricultural
operations are sometimes forced to cease operations, and many persons
may be discouraged from making investments in farm improvements.
It is the purpose of this section to reduce the loss to the state of its
agricultural resources by limiting the circumstances under which
agricultural operations may be deemed to be a nuisance.
(c) For purposes of this section, the continuity of an agricultural or
industrial operation shall be considered to have been interrupted when
the operation has been discontinued for more than one (1) year.
(d) An agricultural or industrial operation or any of its
appurtenances is not and does not become a nuisance, private or public,
by any changed conditions in the vicinity of the locality after the
agricultural or industrial operation, as the case may be, has been in
operation continuously on the locality for more than one (1) year if the
following conditions exist:
(1) There is no significant change in the type of operation. A
significant change in the type of agricultural operation does not
include the following:
(A) The conversion from one type of agricultural operation to
another type of agricultural operation.
(B) A change in the ownership or size of the agricultural
operation.
(C) The:
(i) enrollment; or
(ii) reduction or cessation of participation;
of the agricultural operation in a government program.
(D) Adoption of new technology by the agricultural operation.
(2) The operation would not have been a nuisance at the time the
agricultural or industrial operation began on that locality.
[Pre-2002 Recodification Citation: 34-19-1-4.]
As added by P.L.2-2002, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.23-2005,
SEC.1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case:
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 14× “In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9 , which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind.”
Stickdorn v. Zook, 957 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 4× “" I.C. § 32-30-6-9(b). However, when examining the statutory provisions and the policy behind the Right to Farm Act, it is our view that it has no applicability to the manner in which two farmers, i.”
Lindsey v. DeGroot, 898 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “The Act, codified at Indiana Code section 32-30-6-9 (2007), provides the following: (a) This section does not apply if a nuisance results from the negligent operation of an agricultural or industrial operation or its appurtenances.”
TDM Farms, Inc. of North Carolina v. Wilhoite Fam. Farm, LLC, 969 N.E.2d 97 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 6× “§§ 151-159 , or they are barred by Indiana’s Right to Farm Act, Ind.Code § 32-30-6-9. We hold that Wilhoite’s claims are outside the scope of the VSTA and corresponding federal regulations.”
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 12× “On August 22, 2011, the Dairy filed its answer asserting the Indiana Right to Farm Act, Ind.Code § 32-30-6-9, as an affirmative defense.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(a) — 1 case
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9 , which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(b) — 4 cases
Stickdorn v. Zook, 957 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“" I.C. § 32-30-6-9(b). However, when examining the statutory provisions and the policy behind the Right to Farm Act, it is our view that it has no applicability to the manner in which two farmers, i.”
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9 , which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(d) — 5 cases
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9 , which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind.”
Stickdorn v. Zook, 957 N.E.2d 1014 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011).
“" I.C. § 32-30-6-9(b). However, when examining the statutory provisions and the policy behind the Right to Farm Act, it is our view that it has no applicability to the manner in which two farmers, i.”
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“On August 22, 2011, the Dairy filed its answer asserting the Indiana Right to Farm Act, Ind.Code § 32-30-6-9, as an affirmative defense.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(d)(1) — 1 case
Janet L. Himsel, Martin Richard Himsel, Robert J. Lannon, Susan M. Lannon v. Samuel Himsel, Cory M. Himsel, Clinton S. Himsel, 4/9 Livestock, LLC, & Co-All., LLP & State of Indiana, 122 N.E.3d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019).
“In their complaint, the Plaintiffs also challenged the constitutionality of Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9 , which is commonly known as the Right to Farm Act (the RTFA), and Ind.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(d)(1)(A) — 2 cases
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“On August 22, 2011, the Dairy filed its answer asserting the Indiana Right to Farm Act, Ind.Code § 32-30-6-9, as an affirmative defense.”
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(d)(1)(B) — 1 case
— Ind. Code § 32-30-6-9(d)(l)(B) — 1 case
Parker v. Obert's Legacy Dairy, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013).
“On August 22, 2011, the Dairy filed its answer asserting the Indiana Right to Farm Act, Ind.Code § 32-30-6-9, as an affirmative defense.”
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.