Parker v. Obert’s Legacy Dairy, LLC
Indiana Court of Appeals
988 N.E.2d 319 (2013)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
Glenn Parker and his family (plaintiffs) owned and lived on 68 acres of land that were used to hobby farm for many years. Eventually, the Parkers leased the land to a farmer who grew corn and soybeans. The Obert family owned Obert’s Legacy Dairy, LLC (defendants). The Obert family engaged in farming in the area since 1830 on land adjacent to the Parkers’ property. Eventually, the Oberts decided to shift from producing crops to feed its cows into a dairy operation and sought a permit to expand its operations from 100 cows to 760 cows. Glenn sent a letter in protest, claiming that the dairy would become a factory-like mega farm that would increase the odors that would concentrate at his home. The permit was approved, and the Parkers filed suit, alleging a nuisance claim stating that the dairy operations produced offensive odors; devalued their property; and caused discomfort, inconvenience, and personal injury. The Oberts filed an answer asserting the Indiana Right to Farm Act as an affirmative defense. The Oberts then moved for summary judgment based on the act, and the trial court granted it. The Parkers appealed, arguing that the act does not apply between two agricultural operations, that the Oberts’ expansion constituted a significant change that precluded the act’s applicability, and that the act does not apply because they have resided on the property for years prior to the nuisance beginning.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Riley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.