Legal Opinion

Holubec v. Brandenberger

Texas Supreme Court

Decided May 22, 2003No. 01-1214PublishedCited by 131 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtChief Justice Phillips

In this appeal, we explore the contours of the Right to Farm Act’s affirmative defense against claims that agricultural operations are a nuisance. The Act provides that “[n]o nuisance action may be brought against an agricultural operation” that has been in lawful operation for more than a year “if the conditions or circumstances complained of as constituting the basis for the nuisance action have existed substantially unchanged since the established date of operation.” Tex. AgRIc. Code § 251.004(a). The petitioners here are agricultural operators who complain that a defective jury charge…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Texas Ass'n of Business v. Texas Air Control BoardTexas Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Johnson v. City of Fort WorthTexas Supreme Court · 1989
  3. Trinity River Authority v. URS Consultants, Inc.Texas Supreme Court · 1994
  4. Southeastern Pipe Line Co., Inc. v. TichacekTexas Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Maranatha Temple, Inc. v. Enterprise Products Company, Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston)1995

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

3Cited by131 opinions

  1. Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. BatesTexas Supreme Court · 2004
  2. Galbraith Engineering Consultants, Inc. v. PochuchaTexas Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Crosstex North Texas Pipeline, L.P., N/K/A Enlink North Texas Pipeline, Lp v. Andrew Gardiner and Shannon GardinerTexas Supreme Court · 2016
  4. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. LenkTexas Supreme Court · 2012
  5. Aguilar v. Morales, Texas Court of Appeals, 8th District (El Paso)2005

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

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

Powered by the Exa API