Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 5753 (2026)

Agricultural activities; protection from nuisance lawsuits

✓ 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)

§ 5753. Agricultural activities; protection from nuisance lawsuits

(a) No agricultural activity shall be or become a nuisance when the activity is conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices.

(b)(1) In order to assert nuisance protection under this chapter, a person conducting an agricultural activity shall demonstrate that the person is in good standing with the State. A person may demonstrate good standing by providing letters of good standing to a court from the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets; the Secretary of Natural Resources; or both secretaries, as relevant to the nuisance claim.

(2) A plaintiff alleging that an agricultural activity is a nuisance shall have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(A) the agricultural activity at issue is not entitled to the nuisance protection provided for under subsection (a) of this section because the agricultural activity is not conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practice; and

(B) if the plaintiff proves the agricultural activity is not entitled to nuisance protection under subsection (a) of this section, the required elements of their nuisance claim.

(c) The nuisance protection for an agricultural activity provided for under subsection (a) of this section shall not apply if the plaintiff demonstrates one or more of the following:

(1) A nuisance violation results from the negligent operation of an agricultural activity.

(2) The agricultural activity has a substantial adverse effect on health, safety, or welfare based upon objective, documented medical or scientific evidence that the agricultural activity was the proximate cause of the alleged effect.

(3) A reasonable person would find that the agricultural activity was a proximate cause of a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property.

(d) This chapter shall not restrict or impede the authority of the State to protect the public health, safety, environment, or welfare. (Added 1981, No. 68, eff. May 1, 1981; amended 2003, No. 149 (Adj. Sess.), § 12, eff. June 3, 2004; 2025, No. 61, § 1, eff. July 1, 2025.)

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

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.