Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5753 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(Cite as: 12 V.S.A. § 5753)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case: 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).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
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). “); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5753 (West, Westlaw through 2017-18 Sess.”
Trickett v. Ochs, 2003 VT 91 (Vt. 2003). “Following an evidentiary hearing on plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, the Addison Superior Court dismissed the action based upon its conclusions that defendants’ activities were protected by Vermont’s right-to-farm law, 12 V.S.A. § 5753, and that, in any event, previous…”
Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC, 2024 VT 29 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 2× “12 V.S.A. § 5753(a)(1). In its March 2022 final order, the trial court found that Vorsteveld did not meet conditions A, C, and D, and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption that its activities did not constitute a nuisance.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5753(a)(1) — 1 case
Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC, 2024 VT 29 (Vt. 2024). “12 V.S.A. § 5753(a)(1). In its March 2022 final order, the trial court found that Vorsteveld did not meet conditions A, C, and D, and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption that its activities did not constitute a nuisance.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5753(a)(1)(D) — 1 case
Aerie Point Holdings, LLC v. Vorsteveld Farm, LLC, 2024 VT 29 (Vt. 2024). “12 V.S.A. § 5753(a)(1). In its March 2022 final order, the trial court found that Vorsteveld did not meet conditions A, C, and D, and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of the presumption that its activities did not constitute a nuisance.”
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.