{"id":7548,"date":"2019-06-10T15:00:47","date_gmt":"2019-06-10T20:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=7548"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:21:37","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:21:37","slug":"indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act"},"content":{"rendered":"

Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a challenge to the Indiana Right to Farm Statute.\u00a0 In\u00a0Himsel v. Himsel<\/em>, the court held the statute was constitutional.<\/p>\n

\"\"

TAMU AgriLife photo<\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

Factual Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sam Himsel has farmed in rural Hendricks County, Indiana, for his entire life.\u00a0 In 2012, he and his sons decided to form 4\/9 Livestock to start raising hogs.\u00a0 They located their hog farm on property that had been in their family for over two decades and had been used for agriculture since at least 1941. The family planned to construct two livestock barns with a 4,000 hog capacity each.<\/p>\n

In order to do so, the family was required to take certain legal actions.\u00a0 First, they had to seek re-zoning of the land from agricultural residential to agricultural intensive, which they successfully did.\u00a0 One of the plaintiffs in this case spoke against the re-zoning at the hearing, but none of the plaintiffs appealed the decision.\u00a0 Next, the family had to obtain a permit for the CAFO from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), which included two public hearings.\u00a0 The IDEM granted the two permits, and the plaintiffs did not object.<\/p>\n

In July 2013, 4\/9 Livestock entered into an independent contractor relationship with Co-Alliance.\u00a0 Co-Alliance would supply hogs and 4\/9 would raise them.\u00a0 Each group of hogs would remain on the property for about 6 months before shipped off, and then another group being shipped in.<\/p>\n

Hogs first arrived on the property in October 2013.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs live in the vicinity of the hog operation.\u00a0 Richard and Janet Himsel have lived in a 1926 farmhouse since 1994 and previously farmed the land.\u00a0 Richard also raised livestock previously on his farm, including 200 hogs, 200 head of cattle, and a 400-head swine confinement building.\u00a0 Robert Lannon built his home in 1971 and although he and his wife have never farmed, they are accustomed to rural life.<\/p>\n

Procedural Background<\/strong><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs filed suit against 4\/9 Livestock claiming nuisance, negligence, and trespass.\u00a0 In particular, the plaintiffs complained about the odor of the swine operation claiming it diminished their quality of life, property value, and altered their daily activities.\u00a0 Further, the plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the Indiana Right to Farm Act, claiming the statute both facially unconstitutional and unconstitutional as applied in this case as it violates the Open Courts Clause, the Takings Clause of both the federal and state constitution, and the Privileges and Immunities clause.<\/p>\n

4\/9 Livestock, raising the Right to Farm Act as a defense, moved for summary judgment, which was granted by the court.\u00a0 This effectively dismissed the case.\u00a0 The plaintiffs appealed.<\/p>\n

Indiana Right to Farm Act<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Indiana Right to Farm Act exists to “conserve, protect, and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural and for the production of food and other agricultural products.”<\/p>\n

The statute provides, in relevant part, that an agricultural operation is not and does not become a nuisance by any changed conditions in the vicinity of the locality after the agricultural operation has been in operation continually on the locality for more than one year and: (1) there is no significant change in the type of operation ; and (2) the operation would not have been a nuisance at the time the agricultural operation began on that locality.\u00a0 Further, the statute expressly provides that the following situations are not “significant changes” per the statute: “(a) the conversion from one type of ag operation to another type of ag operation; (b) a change in the ownership or size of the ag operation;… and (d) the adoption of new technology by the ag operation.”\u00a0 Additionally, there is an exception, providing that the Act is inapplicable if the nuisance results from the negligent operation of the ag operation. [Read the full statute here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Here, the plaintiffs conceded that the hog farm is an ag operation, has been in existence for over one year, and that no significant change–as defined by the statute–has occurred.\u00a0 The plaintiffs argue that the Right to Farm Act does not apply, however, because they say the hog farm would have been a nuisance when farming originally began on the farm.<\/p>\n

Court of Appeals Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nuisance claim<\/em><\/p>\n

The court sided with 4\/9 Livestock.\u00a0 Importantly, the court held it would not require 4\/9 Livestock to prove that\u00a0their particular<\/em> hog farm would not have been a nuisance in 1941, only that hog farming generally would not have been.\u00a0\u00a0As the Court explained,\u00a0“Robert Lannon knowingly built his residential home in the middle of farm country, and the Himsel Plaintiffs lived and farmed on their property for a number of years before selling off much of their land and changing the use of their home to purely residential.\u00a0 None of the Plaintiffs can now be heard to complaint hat their residential use of their property is being negatively impacted because the use of the Farm changed from crops to hogs, a use that would not have been a nuisance in or around 1941 when the agricultural operation began on the locality.”<\/p>\n

Further, the court noted the significant “local and administrative hurdles” a farmer has to overcome before building this type of operation.\u00a0 “The plaintiffs were provided ample due process to challenge the size and\/or placement of the CAFO buildings on the Farm, yet they decided instead to wait and file a nuisance action more than two years later.\u00a0 In light of the Right to Farm Act, they put their eggs in the wrong basket.\u00a0 Their general nuisance claim fails as a matter of law.”<\/p>\n

Negligence claim<\/em><\/p>\n

The court found that the exception to the Right to Farm Act, providing the act does not apply if the operation is done in a negligent manner, is inapplicable to this case.\u00a0 There was no evidence that the operation was being negligently managed or were in violation of any IDEM regulations.\u00a0 And as to the claim of “negligent siting,” the court found that this claim–related to the decision to build in a particular location–cannot constitute “negligent operation” under the Right to Farm Act, as it would provide an end-run around the Act itself.<\/p>\n

Trespass claim<\/em><\/p>\n

The plaintiffs sought to avoid the Right to Farm Act defense by pleading trespass, whereas the statutory language refers only to nuisance claims.\u00a0 In particular, they claimed that the odor, pollutants, and harmful gasses, resulted in a physical, space-filling invasion to their homes.\u00a0 Citing to a case from here in Texas, the court held that this type of artful pleading and labeling does not allow a plaintiff to avoid the Right to Farm Act.\u00a0 Thus, the defense applies to trespass claims as well.<\/p>\n

Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act<\/em><\/p>\n

Finally, the Court addressed the constitutionality of the Indiana Right to Farm Act.<\/p>\n

Open Courts Clause (IN Constitution)<\/span>\u00a0 “All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.”\u00a0 The court held that the legislature modifying the common law of nuisance by passing the Right to Farm Act does not violate this provision as this limitation is rationale and falls within the authority of the legislature.<\/p>\n

Takings clauses (IN and US Constitution)<\/span>\u00a0 In order to prove a regulatory takings, the court analyzed, the plaintiffs would have to show a deprivation of all or substantially all economic or productive use of his or her property.\u00a0 The court cited to prior cases involving noise complaints where the courts rejected takings claims because the noise did not amount to a substantial impairment of the use of the property.\u00a0 Similarly, the court held that here, the plaintiffs were not deprived of all or substantially all of their economic uses of their properties.\u00a0 Although property values may have decreased, they remained significant according to the court.\u00a0 Moreover, both continue to live on the properties.\u00a0 Thus, no taking occurred.<\/p>\n

Privileges and Immunities Clause (IN Constitution)<\/span>\u00a0 “The General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges and immunities, which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens.”\u00a0 The plaintiffs claim the statute creates two classes of people, those who are currently engaged in an ag operation in existence for over one year and everyone else who lives in the country.\u00a0 They argue that those in the first group may sue anyone in the first or second group for nuisance, while those in the second group may\u00a0 only sue those in the second group.\u00a0 Although the court agrees that the Right to Farm Act treats ag operations differently, it held that it did so for a rational reason–to protect agriculture.\u00a0 Further, the court found that the preferential treatment is uniform among all ag operations.\u00a0 This clause was not violated by the Right to Farm Act.<\/p>\n

IN Agricultural Canon<\/span>\u00a0 The Canon, passed in 2014, essentially states a policy to protect agriculture and provides that state law shall be construed to protect the rights of agricultural operations.\u00a0 This Canon applies to aid in interpreting statutes only where it is ambiguous–where a statute is clear, the Canon does not apply.\u00a0 Because the Right to Farm Act is unambiguous, and the Canon need not be applied, the court declined to consider its constitutionality.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs\u00a0 have filed a Motion for Rehearing, so the timeline to file an appeal to the IN Supreme Court has not yet run.<\/p>\n

Why We Care?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Right to Farm Acts exist in all 50 states, although the language and details of each differ.\u00a0 [To find your state’s Act, click here<\/a>.]\u00a0 These statutes offer an affirmative defense to ag operations facing nuisance lawsuits and have been important to farmers and ranchers particularly in areas of urban sprawl.\u00a0 There have been a number of nuisance lawsuits against ag operations across the country in recent years, and these defenses are often critical to those defending an agricultural operation.\u00a0 It can be instructive to see the legal challenges brought to different state statutes and the ways courts analyze them, as we well may see other similar cases in other states at some point.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a challenge to the Indiana Right to Farm Statute.\u00a0 In\u00a0Himsel v. Himsel, the court held the statute was constitutional. Factual Background Sam Himsel has farmed in rural Hendricks County, Indiana, for his entire life.\u00a0 In 2012, he and his sons decided to form 4\/9 Livestock to start raising hogs.\u00a0 They located their hog farm on property that had been in their family for over two decades and had been used for agriculture since at least 1941. The family planned to construct… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2444,"featured_media":7631,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7548","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-right-to-farm-laws"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nIndiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a challenge to the Indiana Right to Farm Statute.\u00a0 In\u00a0Himsel v. Himsel, the court held the statute was constitutional. Factual Background Sam Himsel has farmed in rural Hendricks County, Indiana, for his entire life.\u00a0 In 2012, he and his sons decided to form 4\/9 Livestock to start raising hogs.\u00a0 They located their hog farm on property that had been in their family for over two decades and had been used for agriculture since at least 1941. The family planned to construct... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"428\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowell\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\"},\"headline\":\"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1664,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Right to Farm laws\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/\",\"name\":\"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":428,\"caption\":\"TAMU AgriLife photo\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2019\\\/06\\\/10\\\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowell\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowell\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"Recently, the Indiana Court of Appeals heard a challenge to the Indiana Right to Farm Statute.\u00a0 In\u00a0Himsel v. Himsel, the court held the statute was constitutional. Factual Background Sam Himsel has farmed in rural Hendricks County, Indiana, for his entire life.\u00a0 In 2012, he and his sons decided to form 4\/9 Livestock to start raising hogs.\u00a0 They located their hog farm on property that had been in their family for over two decades and had been used for agriculture since at least 1941. The family planned to construct... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":428,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowell","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowell","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowell","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73"},"headline":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act","datePublished":"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/"},"wordCount":1664,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg","articleSection":["Right to Farm laws"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/","name":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg","datePublished":"2019-06-10T20:00:47+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:21:37+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2019\/06\/3769301826_612d23d186_z.jpg","width":640,"height":428,"caption":"TAMU AgriLife photo"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2019\/06\/10\/indiana-court-of-appeals-upholds-constitutionality-of-right-to-farm-act\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Indiana Court of Appeals Upholds Constitutionality of Right to Farm Act"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/f44cbb97df9edaa18011b5258d733f73","name":"tiffany.dowell","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowell\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7548","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2444"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7548"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7548\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7631"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7548"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7548"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7548"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}