## Facts

- Donald and Jacquelyn Lindsey bought about ten acres of wooded land in rural Huntington County, Indiana, built a large home, and lived in an agricultural area with nearby livestock operations.
- In 2002, DeGroot began operating a large dairy facility on adjacent land, including about 1,500 milking cows, crop production, and related farm activities.
- A boundary dispute arose over a grass strip between the properties; DeGroot removed a fence and planted crops after relying on a survey placing the boundary in DeGroot’s favor.
- The Lindseys alleged the dairy produced persistent odors, flies, noise, and other conditions that substantially interfered with their use and enjoyment of their property and caused physical symptoms and emotional distress.
- The Lindseys sued in 2003 seeking to stop the dairy and asserting nuisance, negligence, trespass/criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED).

## Issues

1. Whether Indiana’s Right to Farm Act barred the Lindseys’ nuisance claim against the dairy operation.
2. Whether applying the Right to Farm Act to bar the nuisance claim constituted an unconstitutional taking or violated Indiana’s open-courts clause.
3. Whether the record showed genuine issues of material fact on trespass/criminal trespass, criminal mischief, and IIED.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for DeGroot Dairy on all claims.
- The Right to Farm Act barred the nuisance claim because the operation met the statute’s requirements and the Lindseys failed to designate evidence supporting the negligent-operation exception.
- Application of the Right to Farm Act did not amount to a taking and did not violate the open-courts clause.
- The trespass-based and criminal mischief claims failed because the designated evidence (including a survey) showed DeGroot acted on its own property and the Lindseys did not create a triable ownership dispute.
- The IIED claim failed because the alleged conduct (operating the dairy and acting in the boundary dispute) was not extreme and outrageous as a matter of law.

## Legal Principles

- A qualifying agricultural operation is protected from nuisance liability under Indiana’s Right to Farm Act when the statutory conditions are met, subject to an exception for nuisance caused by negligent operation.
- At summary judgment, plaintiffs must designate evidence creating a genuine factual dispute on negligence and proximate causation to invoke the negligent-operation exception.
- Legislative limitation of common-law remedies in pursuit of legitimate public purposes may be constitutional and does not necessarily constitute a compensable taking or violate the open-courts clause.
- Trespass and related claims require evidence of intrusion or interference with another’s property; where designated evidence shows the defendant acted within its own boundary and the plaintiff does not controvert it, summary judgment is proper.
- IIED requires conduct so extreme and outrageous that it exceeds all bounds of decency; ordinary business operations and property disputes typically do not meet that threshold.

## Conclusion

The court upheld statutory protections for agricultural operations by applying the Right to Farm Act to bar a neighboring landowner’s nuisance claim absent designated evidence of negligent operation and affirmed summary judgment on related tort claims where the record did not show a triable property-boundary dispute or extreme and outrageous conduct.


Lindsey v. DeGroot, 898 N.E.2d 1251 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009)