MICHIGAN RIGHT TO FARM ACT
Act 93 of 1981
286.473 Farm or farm operation as public or private nuisance; review and revision of practices; finding; conditions.
Sec. 3.
(1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission of agriculture. Generally accepted agricultural and management practices shall be reviewed annually by the Michigan commission of agriculture and revised as considered necessary.
(2) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation existed before a change in the land use or occupancy of land within 1 mile of the boundaries of the farm land, and if before that change in land use or occupancy of land, the farm or farm operation would not have been a nuisance.
(3) A farm or farm operation that is in conformance with subsection (1) shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance as a result of any of the following:
(a) A change in ownership or size.
(b) Temporary cessation or interruption of farming.
(c) Enrollment in governmental programs.
(d) Adoption of new technology.
(e) A change in type of farm product being produced.
History: 1981, Act 93, Imd. Eff. July 11, 1981 ;-- Am. 1987, Act 240, Imd. Eff. Dec. 28, 1987 ;-- Am. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
28
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1986–2025 · leading case:
Lima Twp v. Bateson, 302 Mich. App. 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Lima Twp v. Bateson, 302 Mich. App. 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “[MCL 286.473(1) (emphasis added).] Pursuant to this language, it is clear that to determine whether an activity is protected under the RTFA, a two-pronged analysis is required: first, the activity must constitute either a “farm” or a “farm operation,” and second, the farm or…”
Shelby Charter Twp. v. Papesh, 704 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 3× “[MCL 286.473.] Thus, “[u]nder the RTFA, a fariri or farming operation cannot be found to be a nuisance if it meets certain criteria, such as conforming to ‘generally accepted *100 agricultural management practices.”
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).
“); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 286.473 (West, Westlaw through P.”
Twp. of Williamstown v. Sandalwood Ranch LLC, 927 N.W.2d 262 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“" MCL 286.473(1). The RTFA also expressly preempts local laws, including zoning ordinances, that conflict with the RTFA or applicable generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPs).”
Travis v. Preston, 635 N.W.2d 362 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 3× “473, provides: *195 (1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan…”
Vern Guindon v. Twp. of Dundee, Michigan, 488 F. App'x 27 (6th Cir. 2012).
“Mich. Comp. Laws § 286.473 . Plaintiffs present no authority for the proposition that the Act enables them to sue the Township.”
Richmond Twp. v. Erbes, 489 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“” MCL 286.473(1); MSA 12.122(3X1). Whether the farm or farm operation conforms to such practices is determined according to policies articulated by the state agricultural commission.”
Travis v. Preston, 643 N.W.2d 235 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “473, provides: (1) A farm or farm operation shall not be found to be a public or private nuisance if the farm or farm operation alleged to be a nuisance conforms to generally accepted agricultural and management practices according to policy determined by the Michigan commission…”
Belvidere Twp. v. Heinze, 615 N.W.2d 250 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “” MCL 286.473(1), (2); MSA 12.122(3)(1), (2).”
Jerome Twp. v. Melchi, 457 N.W.2d 52 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 2× “MCL 286.473; MSA 12.122(3).] Defendants’ maintenance of an apiary on the property constituted a farm or farm operation for purposes of the Right to Farm Act.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 286.473(1) — 21 cases
Lima Twp v. Bateson, 302 Mich. App. 483 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
“[MCL 286.473(1) (emphasis added).] Pursuant to this language, it is clear that to determine whether an activity is protected under the RTFA, a two-pronged analysis is required: first, the activity must constitute either a “farm” or a “farm operation,” and second, the farm or…”
Shelby Charter Twp. v. Papesh, 704 N.W.2d 92 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
“[MCL 286.473.] Thus, “[u]nder the RTFA, a fariri or farming operation cannot be found to be a nuisance if it meets certain criteria, such as conforming to ‘generally accepted *100 agricultural management practices.”
Twp. of Williamstown v. Sandalwood Ranch LLC, 927 N.W.2d 262 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“" MCL 286.473(1). The RTFA also expressly preempts local laws, including zoning ordinances, that conflict with the RTFA or applicable generally accepted agricultural and management practices (GAAMPs).”
Richmond Twp. v. Erbes, 489 N.W.2d 504 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
“” MCL 286.473(1); MSA 12.122(3X1). Whether the farm or farm operation conforms to such practices is determined according to policies articulated by the state agricultural commission.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 286.473(2) — 2 cases
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.