SB 173 – Nuisance actions. Sen Jackman
Requires a court to award reasonable costs and attorney’s fees to an agricultural or industrial operation that successfully defends a nuisance action.
This looks like a follow up to Sen Jackman’s bill a couple of years ago that immunized agricultural operations when they changed from smaller part-time affairs to bigger full-time affairs, defining that not to be a “significant change.”
Under the new law, I suppose, if a neighbor were to file a nuisance suit against an agricultural operation which had been in continuous operation for more than a year but then switched owners and switched to a major confined feeding operation and then the neighbor lost because of the immunity conferred by Sen. Jackman’s prior legislation, then the neighbor would have to pay the attorney’s fees of the confined feeding operation. Nice.
[tags]SB173-2007, CAFO[/tags]
Leave a Reply