Velda J. Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC
411 S.W.3d 405
| Tenn. | 2013Background
- Shore sued Schmidt and Maple Lane Farms seeking to abate amplified concerts as a nuisance and to enforce a Board of Zoning Appeals decision limiting concerts to one per year.
- Maple Lane Farms hosted spring strawberry festivals and fall multi-week festivals with amplified music, helicopter rides, fireworks, and other attractions that increased in intensity from 2006 onward.
- Shore, a neighbor, alleged noise, traffic, trash, and disruption affecting her use and enjoyment of her home, including nighttime noise and stress-related health effects.
- The Blount County Building Commissioner initially determined some activities were agricultural uses, then allowed limited events; Board ultimately restricted concerts to one per year.
- The trial court dismissed Shore’s nuisance claims (and the court of appeals affirmed) on grounds that the Right to Farm Act shielded farm operations from nuisance claims and that concerts qualified as agriculture/agritourism; the Supreme Court reversed, holding RTFA does not cover these concerts and Shore established a prima facie nuisance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Tennessee Right to Farm Act apply to the Maple Lane concerts? | Shore contends concerts are not within farm operations protected by RTFA. | Schmidt contends RTFA shields farm activities, including concert-related noise, from nuisance claims. | RTFA does not apply to the amplified concerts. |
| Do the Maple Lane concerts qualify as 'agriculture' under zoning exemptions? | Shore argues concerts are not agricultural uses exempt from zoning. | Schmidt argues concerts are exempt as agricultural activities or agritourism. | Concerts do not constitute agricultural use or exempt agritourism under the zoning exemptions. |
| Has Shore proven a prima facie common-law nuisance? | Shore presented neighbor testimony and health impacts showing substantial, unreasonable interference. | Schmidt argues no nuisance due to RTFA and lack of direct connection to production of farm products. | Shore presented a prima facie nuisance. |
| What is the appropriate standard of review for involuntary dismissal under Rule 41.02(2)? | De novo review; court must determine whether prima facie nuisance exists and whether RTFA applies. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pate v. City of Martin, 614 S.W.2d 46 (Tenn. 1981) (nuisance factors and balancing; noise considerations in nuisance analysis)
- Caldwell v. Knox Concrete Prods., Inc., 54 Tenn. App. 393, 391 S.W.2d 5 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1964) (noise and local conditions in nuisance inquiry)
- Lane v. W.J. Curry & Sons, 92 S.W.3d 355 (Tenn. 2002) (relates to when noise constitutes a nuisance based on locality and surrounding conditions)
- Hickman v. Continental Baking Co., 143 S.W.3d 72 (Tenn. 2004) (standard of review for appellate factual determinations in nuisance cases)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 37 S.W.3d 892 (Tenn. 2001) (statutory and common-law interpretation standards in Tennessee)