Mississippi Code
Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (2026)
Immunity of certain agricultural operations from nuisance actions
✓ current as of July 2026
- (1) In any nuisance action, public or private, against an agricultural operation, including forestry activity, proof that the agricultural operation, including forestry activity, has existed for one (1) year or more is an absolute defense to the nuisance action, if the operation is in compliance with all applicable state and federal permits.
- (2) The following words and phrases as used in this section shall have the meanings given them in this section:
- (a) "Agricultural operation" includes, without limitation, any facility or production site for the production and processing of crops, or products thereof, livestock, or products thereof, farm-raised fish and fish products, livestock products, honeybees, honey and other products of the beehive, wood, timber or forest products, fowl or plants for breeding or sales and poultry or poultry products for commercial or industrial purposes. "Agricultural operation' also includes the use of farm machinery, equipment, devices, chemicals, products for agricultural use, materials and structures designed for agricultural use and used in accordance with best agricultural management practices and are in compliance with any applicable state and federal permits.
- (b) "Forestry activity" means any activity associated with the reforesting, growing, managing, protecting and harvesting of timber, wood and forest products including nongame species.
- (c) "Traditional farm practices" means those accepted customs and standards established and followed by similar agricultural operations under similar circumstances.
- (3) The provisions of this section shall not be construed to affect any provision of the "Mississippi Air and Water Pollution Control Law."
- (4) This section shall not affect actions commenced prior to July 1, 1980.
Laws, 1980, ch. 374; Laws, 1981, ch. 357, § 1; Laws, 1994, ch. 647, § 2; Laws, 2004, ch. 591, § 1; Laws, 2009, ch. 333, § 1, eff. 3/16/2009.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So. 2d 648 (Miss. 1995).
Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So. 2d 648 (Miss. 1995). “As a preliminary matter, appellants allege that the Fergusons' action is time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 , which provides: (1) In any nuisance action, public or private, against an agricultural operation, proof that said agricultural operation has existed for one (1)…”
Hinds Cty. Bd. of Supr's v. Leggette, 833 So. 2d 586 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “section 95-3-29 (Rev.1994), as provided in § 17-1-3 as a permit exception, does not aid us in our interpretation of the allowed permit exception, "land used for agricultural purposes.”
Bowen v. Flaherty, 601 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1992). “Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (1) (Supp. 1991).”
Cole v. State, 608 So. 2d 1313 (Miss. 1992). “The other day we considered the one-year statute of limitations in our Right To Farm Act, which is codified over in Section 95-3-29(1). Bowen v. Flaherty, 601 So.”
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). “); Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (West, Westlaw through 2018 Reg.”
Eddie J. Briggs, The Oxbow Grp. LLC, Robert Campbell, George R. Day, Jr., James N. Hunter, Ed Morgan & Cynthia Rutland v. Will Hughes & Chad Penn (Miss. 2021). “Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (1) (Rev. 2018).”
Curry v. BC Rogers Poultry, Inc., 797 So. 2d 265 (Miss. Ct. App. 2001). “Rogers filed a motion for summary judgment on November 10, 1997, asserting that the Currys had no valid claim for defamation; that the Currys' nuisance claims were barred by Mississippi Code Annotated § 95-3-29; or, in the alternative, that no factual basis existed to…”
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 310 B.R. 795 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “The motions for summary judgment asserted that the cause of action initiated by the plaintiffs was barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth in pertinent part as follows: § 95-3-29 Immunity of Certain Agricultural…”
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 306 B.R. 849 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “Prestage Farms and the seven debtor/defendants have filed identical motions for summary judgment wherein they allege that the cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs is barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth…”
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “19 ; Mississippi, Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 ; Missouri, Mo.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29(1) — 4 cases
Cole v. State, 608 So. 2d 1313 (Miss. 1992). “The other day we considered the one-year statute of limitations in our Right To Farm Act, which is codified over in Section 95-3-29(1). Bowen v. Flaherty, 601 So.”
Eddie J. Briggs, The Oxbow Grp. LLC, Robert Campbell, George R. Day, Jr., James N. Hunter, Ed Morgan & Cynthia Rutland v. Will Hughes & Chad Penn (Miss. 2021). “Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (1) (Rev. 2018).”
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 310 B.R. 795 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “The motions for summary judgment asserted that the cause of action initiated by the plaintiffs was barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth in pertinent part as follows: § 95-3-29 Immunity of Certain Agricultural…”
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 306 B.R. 849 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “Prestage Farms and the seven debtor/defendants have filed identical motions for summary judgment wherein they allege that the cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs is barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29(2)(a) — 4 cases
Hinds Cty. Bd. of Supr's v. Leggette, 833 So. 2d 586 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “section 95-3-29 (Rev.1994), as provided in § 17-1-3 as a permit exception, does not aid us in our interpretation of the allowed permit exception, "land used for agricultural purposes.”
Leaf River Forest Prods., Inc. v. Ferguson, 662 So. 2d 648 (Miss. 1995). “As a preliminary matter, appellants allege that the Fergusons' action is time-barred under Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 , which provides: (1) In any nuisance action, public or private, against an agricultural operation, proof that said agricultural operation has existed for one (1)…”
Bowen v. Flaherty, 601 So. 2d 860 (Miss. 1992). “Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (1) (Supp. 1991).”
Eddie J. Briggs, The Oxbow Grp. LLC, Robert Campbell, George R. Day, Jr., James N. Hunter, Ed Morgan & Cynthia Rutland v. Will Hughes & Chad Penn (Miss. 2021). “Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29 (1) (Rev. 2018).”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29(2)(b) — 1 case
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 306 B.R. 849 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “Prestage Farms and the seven debtor/defendants have filed identical motions for summary judgment wherein they allege that the cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs is barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth…”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29(2)(c) — 1 case
Hinds Cty. Bd. of Supr's v. Leggette, 833 So. 2d 586 (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). “section 95-3-29 (Rev.1994), as provided in § 17-1-3 as a permit exception, does not aid us in our interpretation of the allowed permit exception, "land used for agricultural purposes.”
— Miss. Code Ann. § 95-3-29(3) — 2 cases
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 310 B.R. 795 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “The motions for summary judgment asserted that the cause of action initiated by the plaintiffs was barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth in pertinent part as follows: § 95-3-29 Immunity of Certain Agricultural…”
Norman v. Prestage Farms, Inc. (In Re Moore), 306 B.R. 849 (Bankr. N.D. Miss. 2004). “Prestage Farms and the seven debtor/defendants have filed identical motions for summary judgment wherein they allege that the cause of action asserted by the plaintiffs is barred by the one year statute of limitations found in Miss.Code Ann., § 95-3-29 (1972), which is set forth…”
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.