316 So.3d 193
Miss.2021Background
- Plaintiffs (Briggs and neighboring landowners) sued farmers Will Hughes and Chad Penn for private nuisance, seeking to enjoin use of propane cannons used seasonally to deter deer from cotton/soybean crops.
- The chancery court initially issued a temporary injunction for the remainder of the growing season, then after a two-day hearing entered final judgment dismissing the nuisance claim with prejudice.
- The chancery court found (1) Hughes’s and Penn’s farms were agricultural operations existing more than one year before suit, (2) propane cannons were used as part of those operations, and (3) cannon use conformed with best agricultural-management practices and any permits, so Miss. Code § 95-3-29(1) barred the nuisance suit.
- On appeal Briggs argued the one-year protection should be measured from the date the specific complained-of practice (use of propane cannons) began, not from the existence of the broader farm operation; he also challenged the best-practices finding, raised a criminal/decriminalization and due-process argument, and objected to expert disclosures under Rule 26.
- The Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed: it applied the plain text of § 95-3-29, held the cannons fall within the statutory definition of agricultural operation when used in accordance with best practices, found substantial evidence supported the factual findings, rejected Briggs’s procedural and constitutional challenges (procedural bars where applicable), and upheld the expert testimony admission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory scope: one-year protection under Right to Farm Act | Briggs: the one-year bar should run from the start of the specific practice complained of (propane-cannon use) | Hughes/Penn: the statute protects existing agricultural operations in existence one year or more; equipment/devices used as best practices are part of the operation | Court: apply plain text—protection tied to the agricultural operation; cannons are part of the operation and thus protected |
| Best agricultural-management practices (factual) | Briggs: cannons can lose effectiveness and thus are not necessarily a “best” practice | Hughes/Penn: agricultural experts testified cannons are recommended and were used consistent with best practices | Court: factual finding supported by substantial evidence; will not disturb chancellor |
| Criminal statute / takings / due process claim | Briggs: applying Right to Farm Act here would decriminalize loud/ disruptive conduct and impair property rights | Hughes/Penn: no criminal charges were brought; the claim before the court was private nuisance barred by statute | Court: no error—criminal intent not shown; constitutional challenge to statute barred for failure to notify AG; substantive claim dismissed under § 95-3-29 |
| Expert disclosure under Miss. R. Civ. P. 26 | Briggs: defendants failed to provide proper expert disclosures (only names) | Hughes/Penn: they incorporated expert affidavits by reference which supplied required substance; no prejudice shown | Court: admission of experts within trial court’s discretion; no abuse shown; testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Coleman v. State, 947 So. 2d 878 (Miss. 2006) (statutory interpretation standard and de novo review)
- Lawson v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc., 75 So. 3d 1024 (Miss. 2011) (apply plain meaning when statute is unambiguous)
- Cummings v. Benderman, 681 So. 2d 97 (Miss. 1996) (standard for disturbing chancellor’s factual findings)
- Bailey Lumber & Supply Co. v. Robinson, 98 So. 3d 986 (Miss. 2012) (disclosure requirements for expert testimony under Rule 26)
- Miss. Transp. Comm’n v. McLemore, 863 So. 2d 31 (Miss. 2003) (admission of expert testimony is within trial court discretion)
- Holubec v. Brandenberger, 111 S.W.3d 32 (Tex. 2003) (Texas interpretation of its right-to-farm act referenced for contrast)