This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Ps own undeveloped land adjoining that of Marceau (D) who operates an apple orchard on his property. P wanted to develop that land, but D’s spraying of his orchard required that P have a 250-foot buffer between the land and residential uses. P failed to meet this requirement and thus sued D seeking injunctive and compensatory relief for D’s spraying of pesticides. D alleged that winds carried detectable levels of pesticides onto its property, thereby damaging the property. D claimed that P had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, that the claims were not ripe, and that the claims were barred by Vermont's right-to-farm law. D moved for summary judgment, arguing that Larkin was making a nuisance claim but couching the complaint in terms of trespass to circumvent the right-to-farm law. The court dismissed P’s claim, and P appealed. The parties frame the primary issue as whether the deposit of airborne particulates on land may sound in trespass rather than nuisance.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.