## Facts

- Glenn and Phyllis Parker owned and lived on a 68-acre property in Gibson County, Indiana, with a residence, outbuildings, and grain silos; they later leased the farmland for corn and soybean cultivation.
- The Obert family owned adjacent land and had operated a dairy farm in the area for generations, historically maintaining dairy structures and about 100 cows.
- In 2006, the Obert family formed Obert’s Legacy Dairy, LLC to continue and expand the dairy operation.
- In 2009, the Dairy sought state authorization for a CAFO-scale operation by applying for an IDEM NPDES CAFO general permit for up to 900 dairy cows and 80 calves.
- The Parkers alleged the expanded operation caused offensive odors and related harms, including discomfort and property-value diminution, and sued for nuisance.
- The Dairy asserted the Indiana Right to Farm Act (RTFA) as an affirmative defense and contended it operated lawfully under state permitting.

## Issues

1. Whether the Indiana Right to Farm Act barred the Parkers’ nuisance claim against the Dairy.
2. Whether the RTFA’s protection applies when the complaining neighbor is also engaged in agricultural use.
3. Whether the Dairy’s CAFO-scale expansion constituted a “significant change” removing RTFA protection.
4. Whether the Parkers’ long-term residence on their property prevented application of RTFA immunity.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment for the Dairy.
- The court held the RTFA barred the Parkers’ nuisance claim.
- The court rejected the argument that RTFA protection is limited to disputes involving non-agricultural neighbors.
- The court concluded the expansion was a continuation/intensification of an existing agricultural operation rather than a disqualifying “significant change.”
- The court found no basis in the record to treat the operation as unlawful or negligently conducted so as to fall within RTFA exceptions.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana’s RTFA, a qualifying agricultural operation may be shielded from nuisance liability when statutory continuity conditions are met and the operation was not a nuisance when it began.
- RTFA protection is not restricted by the neighbor’s status; it can apply even when the complaining party also uses nearby land for agriculture.
- Expansion or increased intensity of an established farm operation can remain within RTFA protection unless the change is so substantial that it is treated as the start of a new, unprotected operation.
- RTFA immunity generally does not extend to agricultural activities conducted unlawfully, negligently, or improperly; regulatory permitting and lack of contrary evidence support application of the statute on summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when the material facts relevant to RTFA applicability are undisputed and the defendant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the Right to Farm Act barred the Parkers’ nuisance action against an adjacent dairy’s permitted CAFO-scale expansion, affirming summary judgment because the operation remained a protected agricultural use and no disqualifying statutory exception was shown.


Parker v. Obert’s Legacy Dairy, LLC, 988 N.E.2d 319 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)