ILNews

Summary judgment affirmed for dairy farm

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of a confined feeding operation in a dispute between the dairy farm and its neighbor over a tract of land and the impact of the farm on the neighbor's property.

Donald J. and Jacquelyn Lindsey v. Johannes DeGroot, Egberdien DeGroot, and DeGroot Dairy, LLC,  No. 35A02-0805-CV-470, is the second appeal involving the Lindseys and DeGroots that has come before the appellate court. Various agricultural organizations, including the Indiana Soybean Alliance and the Indiana Professional Dairy Association, filed amicus briefs in the case.

DeGroot Dairy owns a farm field directly north of Donald and Jacquelyn Lindsey's property, with a grass strip running along the boundary. DeGroot Dairy hired a surveyor, who determined DeGroot was the owner of the northern half of the land and the Lindseys owned the southern half.

More than 18 months after DeGroot began his dairy farm, the Lindseys filed a suit to enjoin the farm from further operation and for compensation for nuisance, negligence, trespass, criminal mischief, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the dairy, finding Indiana's Right to Farm Act applied to the case and barred the nuisance claims. It also found no genuine issues of material fact existed on the other claims.

The Court of Appeals rejected the Lindseys' claim the Indiana Right to Farm Act is unconstitutional and effectively grants an easement to the dairy over the Lindseys' property and found the act barred their nuisance claim. The farm had been in operation for more than a year when they filed suit; the act bars the nuisance suit unless there has been a significant change in the type of farm operation. But because they didn't raise this change before the trial court, the issue is waived here, wrote Judge Cale Bradford.

The Lindseys also failed to prove the claimed nuisance was from the negligent operation of DeGroot Dairy. They didn't designate any evidence suggesting alleged statutory violations by the farm were the proximate cause of their claimed injuries and their own testimony on the matter showed a lack of connection between the farm's alleged 2002 CFO violation, which was later dismissed, and the Lindseys' claimed injury.

On their trespass claim, the Lindseys didn't show any evidence to dispute the survey findings regarding ownership of the grass tract of land. They also couldn't prove the dairy farm recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally damaged their property, which is needed to succeed on their criminal mischief claim. Also, as a matter of law, the dairy farm's actions don't constitute "outrageous" behavior as defined in the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. As a result, summary judgment in favor of DeGroot Dairy on these claims was proper, wrote Judge Bradford.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  2. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

  3. The US has 5% of the world's population and 25% of the world's prisoners. Far too many people are sentenced for far too many years in prison. Many of the federal prisoners are sentenced for marijuana violations. Marijuana is safer than alcohol.

  4. My daughter was married less than a week and her new hubbys picture was on tv for drugs and now I havent't seen my granddaughters since st patricks day. when my daughter left her marriage from her childrens Father she lived with me with my grand daughters and that was ok but I called her on the new hubby who is in jail and said didn't want this around my grandkids not unreasonable request and I get shut out for her mistake

  5. From the perspective of a practicing attorney, it sounds like this masters degree in law for non-attorneys will be useless to anyone who gets it. "However, Ted Waggoner, chair of the ISBA’s Legal Education Conclave, sees the potential for the degree program to actually help attorneys do their jobs better. He pointed to his practice at Peterson Waggoner & Perkins LLP in Rochester and how some clients ask their attorneys to do work, such as filling out insurance forms, that they could do themselves. Waggoner believes the individuals with the legal master’s degrees could do the routine, mundane business thus freeing the lawyers to do the substantive legal work." That is simply insulting to suggest that someone with a masters degree would work in a role that is subpar to even an administrative assistant. Even someone with just a certificate or associate's degree in paralegal studies would be overqualified to sit around helping clients fill out forms. Anyone who has a business background that they think would be enhanced by having a legal background will just go to law school, or get an MBA (which typically includes a business law class that gives a generic, broad overview of legal concepts). No business-savvy person would ever seriously consider this ridiculous master of law for non-lawyers degree. It reeks of desperation. The only people I see getting it are the ones who did not get into law school, who see the degree as something to add to their transcript in hopes of getting into a JD program down the road.

ADVERTISEMENT