Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act

Case Law

The following resources represent a collection of court filings and judicial opinions regarding the Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act. Furthermore, the decisions may be viewed via an online legal database using the mentioned docket number.

This list of cases is not exhaustive.

Tinicum Township v. Nowicki
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 1749 C.D. 2019

• Opinion (Dec. 8, 2020) (denied Plaintiff’s appeal from the Bucks County Common Pleas Court’s October 22, 2019 order)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2114 CD 2014

• Opinion (Mar. 31, 2016) (affirmed orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County)

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 2176 CD 2012

• Opinion (Sep. 9, 2014) (holding that when “none of the raw materials from the mulching operation are produced on the Property and none of the resulting mulch is used for the production of livestock, crops, or agricultural commodities on the Property, the mulching operation is not a ‘normal agricultural operation’ as defined by section 2 of the Right to Farm Act)

Burlingame v. Dagostin
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 296 MAL 2018

• Opinion (Sep. 18, 2018) (Order denying petition for allowance of appeal)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 799 MDA 2017

• Opinion (Mar. 29, 2018) (affirmed order granting summary judgment)

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, No. 2015-02092

• Opinion and Order (Apr. 13, 2017) (summary judgment granted in favor of a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) that engaged in the spreading of liquid swine manure. The court held that: 1) because the agricultural operation had an approved Pennsylvania Nutrient Management Plan prior to application of liquid swine manure, RTFA’s one year time limit was irrelevant; 2) operating a CAFO and the application of liquid swine manure are “normal agricultural operations” under RTFA; and 3) the agricultural operation had been lawfully operating since it began and was in full compliance with its nutrient management plan)

Branton v. Nicholas Meat, LLC
Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 536 MDA 2016

• Opinion (Apr. 4, 2017) (holding that RTFA’s “lawful” requirement under § 954(a) is satisfied if an agricultural operation “substantially complies with relevant federal, state, and local laws.” The court stated that “a lawful use is not rendered unlawful simply because an owner may have been cited for an infraction for noncompliance in connection with the use.” Nevertheless, the court ruled that while the application and storage of food processing waste are normal agricultural operations under RTFA, the construction of a 2,400,000-gallon storage tank was a “substantial change” to the agricultural operation. As a result, because the suit was brought within one year of the change, the case was not barred under RTFA)

Balady Farms, LLC v. Paradise Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 171 CD 2016

• Opinion (Oct. 4, 2016) (reversed the Township Zoning Hearing Board’s denial of a farm to operate a commercial poultry processing facility “because the board erred in its interpretation of the ordinance as the proposed addition of a chicken processing facility for chickens raised and bred on the farm fell squarely within the township’s definition of agriculture and the Pennsylvania Municipalities Planning Code, 53 P.S. § 10107, and, thus, was permitted as of right in the township’s Rural Conservation District.”)

Gilbert v. Synagro Central, LLC
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, No. 121 MAP 2014

• Opinion (Dec. 21, 2015) (holding that: 1) § 954(a) of the Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act (RTFA) contains a one-year statute of repose barring nuisance suits, and application of the one-year statute of repose is a question of law for courts to decide; and 2) the land application of biosolids as fertilizer meets RTFA’s definition of a “normal agricultural operation.”)

Superior Court of Pennsylvania, No. 119 MDA 2013

• Opinion (Apr. 15, 2014) (finding that substantial change in an agricultural operation creating a nuisance does not eliminate the one-year statute of repose, but merely causes the one-year statute of repose to reset and start at the time of the substantial change. Also, finding that summary judgment was not proper because issues of material fact exist as to whether the application biosolids is a normal agricultural operation)
• Dissenting Opinion (Apr. 15, 2014)

Commonwealth v. Locust Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 358 MD 2006

• Opinion (Jul. 17, 2012) (finding that an ordinance establishing a 60-acre minimum lot size for an intensive animal agricultural operation did not violate the Right to Farm Act, because the ordinance did not declare or prohibit a public nuisance, but instead, simply amended the Township’s zoning code that defined a use and established where, and under what conditions, a use was permitted)

Corbett v. Richmond Township
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, No. 360 MD 2006

• Opinion and Order (May 28, 2010) (finding that an ordinance “which requires that solid and liquid wastes be disposed of daily in a manner to avoid creating a public nuisance” violates section 3(a) of the Right to Farm Act)

Remaley v. Zook
Snyder County Court of Common Pleas, No. CV-0580-2007

• Order (Aug. 14, 2009) (denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Post-Trial Relief)
• Order (Apr. 29, 2009) (entering judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs; holding that odor from poultry farm did not constitute a nuisance as a matter of law)

In re Robinson
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas, No. 03-10662

• Order (Nov. 18, 2005) (finding that “the landowners were not exempt from having to obtain the required permit since the landowners were involved in the activity of “grading,” and not in the permit-exempt activity of “farming,” the composition of the township code hearing board was proper, and the Pennsylvania Right to Farm Act, 3 Pa. Stat. Ann. § 951 et seq., did not protect the landowners’ activities.)

Horne v. Haladay
Superior Court of Pennsylvania

• Opinion (Mar. 30, 1999) (finding that a lawsuit must be filed within one year of lawful inception of business operation or substantial change to the business)

Case summary created by the Center for Agricultural and Shale Law

Wellington Farms, Inc. v. Township of Silver Springs
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

• Opinion (Jun. 6, 1996) (finding Right to Farm Act did not protect poultry slaughterhouse)

In re: Burger
Bucks County Court of Common Pleas, No. 90-6579-18-5

• Order (Nov. 17, 1992) (finding that a zoning ordinance was not considered a nuisance ordinance under the Right to Farm Act)