Meetings
Transcript: Select text below to play or share a clip
[Robert "Bob" Plunkett]: Right. Thank you. Welcome back. Thank you. If we went and had a hearty discussion, I might add. And I don't if there's anything that we have to go over again, Michael, as far as Well, I'll
[Michael (Legislative Counsel)]: just summarize what I think you agreed to, and you can correct me if I'm wrong. Okay. So the language would still say if the plaintiff demonstrates one or more of the following. So it's on the plaintiff to to show to pierce the the noose's protection. Sub two, sole would be changed approximate, and that would be the only change. In sub three, there would be agreement with general agreement with the language that you have proposed that the plaintiff must demonstrate that a reasonable person would find that the agricultural activity was approximate cause of a noxious and significant interference with the use and enjoyment of the neighboring property. Sure.
[Robert "Bob" Plunkett]: So we agree? I reluctantly agree. Thank you, sir. Have another day. Thank you, sir. You. You guys as well. Thank you.
[Michael (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Thanks, Bob. So how will this work? I go make the change, and I come I can either give it to one of you to get the signatures, or I can track it down.
[Robert "Bob" Plunkett]: No. Just whatever. We'll be