Legal Opinion

Davis v. Taylor

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided April 20, 2006No. 24041-0-IIIPublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, C.J.

¶1 — State and county right-to-farm laws insulate farmers from liability for nuisances that preexist residential development. Here, after a neighboring residential development had been well established, the defendant *518farmers changed their orchard from an apple orchard to a cherry orchard and then started using loud guns to scare away birds. The trial judge concluded that Yakima County’s version of the right-to-farm law accommodated this new noisy activity because the farm preexisted the residential development. We conclude that it is the farming practice or activity that controls, not the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders LPWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  2. Buchanan v. Simplot Feeders Ltd. PartnershipWashington Supreme Court · 1998
  3. Entertainment Industry Coalition v. Tacoma-Pierce County Health DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 2005
  4. Tucker v. HayfordCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
  5. Alpental Community Club, Inc. v. Seattle Gymnastics SocietyWashington Supreme Court · 2005

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Davis v. TaylorCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2006

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API