Tennessee Code Annotated
Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103 (2026)
Farms presumed not nuisances
✓ current as of May 2026
- (a) It is a rebuttable presumption that a farm or farm operation is not a public or private nuisance. The presumption created by this subsection (a) may be overcome only if the person claiming a public or private nuisance establishes by a preponderance of the evidence that either:
- (1) The farm operation, based on expert testimony, does not conform to generally accepted agricultural practices; or
- (2) The farm or farm operation alleged to cause the nuisance does not comply with any applicable statute or rule, including without limitation statutes and rules administered by the department of agriculture or the department of environment and conservation.
- (b) [Deleted by 2019 amendment.]
- (c) [Deleted by 2019 amendment.]
- (d) [Deleted by 2019 amendment.]
- (e) [Deleted by 2019 amendment.]
Amended by 2019 Tenn. Acts, ch. 87,s 7, eff. 4/4/2019.
Amended by 2017 Tenn. Acts, ch. 369,s 2, eff. 5/11/2017.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 891,s 2, eff. 4/27/2016.
Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 728,s 1, eff. 4/7/2016.
Amended by 2014 Tenn. Acts, ch. 916,s 5, eff. 7/1/2014.
Acts 1982, ch. 609, § 3; 2002, ch. 604, § 1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2012–2024 · leading case: Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013).
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013). “Shore had failed to rebut the presumption in Tenn.Code Ann. § 43-26-103 that farm operations are not nuisances and that she had failed to prove that his concerts were nuisances.”
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). “); Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103 (West, Westlaw through 2018 2d Reg.”
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2012). “Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103 (2007).10 Within the Act, a “farm operation” means a condition or activity that occurs on a farm in connection with the commercial production of farm products or nursery stock as defined in § 70-8-303, and includes, but is not limited to: marketed…”
KMI Grp., Inc. v. Wade Acres, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2019). “4 The defendants moved to amend their answer to raise the Farm Protection Act, specifically, Tennessee Code Annotated section 43-26-103, as an additional affirmative defense, but subsequently struck the motion.”
Roger Noble v. Jerry Gray (Tenn. Ct. App. 2024). “Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103 : (a) It is a rebuttable presumption that a farm or farm operation is not a public or private nuisance.”
— Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103(a) — 1 case
Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, 411 S.W.3d 405 (Tenn. 2013). “Shore had failed to rebut the presumption in Tenn.Code Ann. § 43-26-103 that farm operations are not nuisances and that she had failed to prove that his concerts were nuisances.”
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.