Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 286 / Act 93 of 1981
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 286.473b (2026)

Recovery of costs and expenses.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN RIGHT TO FARM ACT


Act 93 of 1981


286.473b Recovery of costs and expenses.

Sec. 3b.

    In any nuisance action brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance, if the defendant farm or farm operation prevails, the farm or farm operation may recover from the plaintiff the actual amount of costs and expenses determined by the court to have been reasonably incurred by the farm or farm operation in connection with the defense of the action, together with reasonable and actual attorney fees.

History: Add. 1995, Act 94, Eff. Sept. 30, 1995

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2013–2025 · leading case: Twp. of James v. Daniel Rice (Mich. 2022).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Twp. of James v. Daniel Rice (Mich. 2022). · cites it 40× “Rice moved for reconsideration, arguing that, under MCL 286.473b, he was entitled to costs and expenses, as well as reasonable and actual attorney fees; the district court denied the motion.”
Twp. of James v. Daniel Rice (Mich. 2022). · cites it 40× “Rice moved for reconsideration, arguing that, under MCL 286.473b, he was entitled to costs and expenses, as well as reasonable and actual attorney fees; the district court denied the motion.”
Twp. of James v. Daniel Rice (Mich. 2022). · cites it 40× “Rice moved for reconsideration, arguing that, under MCL 286.473b, he was entitled to costs and expenses, as well as reasonable and actual attorney fees; the district court denied the motion.”
Twp. of James v. Daniel Rice (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 6× “Relatedly, MCL 286.473b provides: In any nuisance action brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance, if the defendant farm or farm operation prevails, the farm or farm operation may recover from the plaintiff the actual amount of costs and expenses…”
Twp. of Richmond v. Rondigo LLC (Mich. 2013). · cites it 5× “473(1) that a GAAMPs- compliant farm or farm operation is immune from characterization as a “nuisance” constitutes one way, but not the only way, in which a defendant farm or farm operation can prevail in a nuisance action and thus receive costs under MCL 286.473b. Furthermore,…”
Hoffman Mach. Corp v. Reid Mach. Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 2× “MCL 286.473b of that act states: In any nuisance action brought in which a farm or farm operation is alleged to be a nuisance, if the defendant farm or farm operation prevails, the farm or farm operation may recover from the plaintiff the actual amount of costs and expenses…”
Claybanks Twp. v. Paul Feorene (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “See MCL 286.473b. Because defendants have failed to establish that the RTFA provides them with an affirmative defense, we will not use the RTFA as a basis to affirm the award of attorney fees.”
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.