Case Summaries
Index
Administrative Law
Farmer's Failure to Appeal Not Caused by Agency Misinformation
Marne A. Coit
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 7, 2006]
In Harts v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found that although the Farm Service Agency (FSA) sent a letter to plaintiff which incorrectly stated dates, this was harmless error and was not the reason plaintiff did not make a timely appeal to National Appeals Division (NAD). Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
FSA's Failure to Address Farmer's Claim Found Arbitrary and Capricious
Marne A. Coit
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 7, 2006]
In Harts v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found that the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) failure to consider misinformation given to plaintiff by a FSA employee regarding plaintiff's appellate rights was arbitrary and capricious. Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
Agency's Findings Must Be Consistent With the Record
Marne A. Coit
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 7, 2006]
In Harts v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas held that the Farm Service Agency's (FSA) failure to recognize the date plaintiff received notice of agency action, as stated in the record, constituted arbitrariness and an abuse of discretion by the agency. Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
Plaintiff Did Exhaust Available Administrative Remedies
Marne A. Coit
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 7, 2006]
In Harts v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas found that the plaintiff did exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing his lawsuit in federal court and, therefore, denied defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust. Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
APHIS Fails to Consider Weed Classification and Environmental Impact
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 5, 2007]
In International Center for Technology Assessment v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner when it denied the plaintiffs' petition to list glyphosate-resistant creeping bentgrass (GTCB) and glyphosate-tolerant Kentucky Blue Grass as noxious weeds and when it decided than no environmental impact statement was necessary to permit the test plots for these two grass varieties. Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
Farmer's CRP and PFC Claims Dismissed
Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 13, 2006]
In Cotrell v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims granted the government's Motion to Dismiss and held that the plaintiff's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) claim had accrued in 1991 for the purposes of the six year statute of limitations on suits against the government, and was therefore time barred. The court also held that the plaintiff's Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) claim was barred by his failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
APHIS Not Required To Identify Level of Risk to Prevent Plant Infestation
Craig Raysor
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 8, 2006]
In Cactus Corner, LLC. v. United States Dep't of Agric., the Ninth Circuit affirmed a grant of summary judgment for the agency by determining that the Secretary was not required to quantify a permissible level of risk or conduct a risk analysis prior to issuing a final rule, and the final rule promulgated was supported by factual determinations. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 26, 2007
Formal Exhaustion Required for District Court Jurisdiction
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 13, 2006]
In Munsell v. United States Department of Agriculture, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over a meat processor’s appeal of Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) actions because the processor’s informal and amicable dialogue did not satisfy exhaustion requirements. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 21, 2007
Court Has Jurisdiction Over Claims Arising Out of Settlement Agreement
Amy Miller
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided October 31, 2005]
In Hall v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims considered whether it had jurisdiction to adjudicate claims arising out of a settlement agreement between the USDA and Mr. George W. Hall, a minority farmer (“Hall”). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 21, 2007
Renewable Fuel Facility Allowed to Sell More Energy Than Its Net Output
Craig Raysor
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 24, 2006]
In Southern California Edison Co. v. Fed. Energy Reg. Comm., the Circuit Court held that FERC did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it allowed a small production facility to sell, over and above its net power output, additional electricity purchased from another qualified facility’s supply of qualifying output. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 4, 2007
Eighth Circuit Holds That 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) Is Non-Jurisdictional
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 16, 2006]
In Ace Property and Cas. Ins. Co. V. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., the Eighth Circuit held that the administrative exhaustion requirement in the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Act of 1994 is non-jurisdictional and may be excused under common law, the Eighth Circuit held that no common law exceptions were applicable and, therefore, all administrative remedies were required to be exhausted. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Private Insurers’ Failure To Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Not Excused By Common Law Exceptions
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 16, 2006]
In Ace Property and Cas. Ins. Co. V. Federal Crop Ins. Corp., the Eighth Circuit held that the administrative exhaustion requirement in the Federal Crop Insurance Reform and Department of Agriculture Act of 1994 is “a codified requirement of administrative exhaustion” and, therefore, no jurisdictional. If excused under common law, the Act does not require all administrative remedies to be exhausted prior to judicial review. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
USDA Decision to Terminate CRP Contract Not Judicially Reviewable
Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided October 7, 2005]
In Biller v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a federal district court had jurisdiction to review a finding that a participant in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) failed to control noxious weeds in violation of the participant’s CRP contract. The Tenth Circuit further held, however, that the decision of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to terminate the contract was not judicially reviewable in light of the USDA’s legitimate determination that the CRP contract had been violated. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Court Gives Deference to NAD Director Review
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 22, 2006]
In Clason v. Johanns, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a National Appeals Division (NAD) interpretation of a delivery requirement in an authorization form relating to marketing assistance loan
collateral. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 17, 2006
FSA Must Follow Regulations in Effect at the Time Shared
Appreciation Agreements Were Signed
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 11, 2006]
In Davies v. Johanes [sic], the United States District Court in the Western District of Missouri held that the USDA must use the same appraisal valuation method both at the time shared appreciation agreements were signed and at the time recapture is calculated. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 17, 2006
USDA Refuses to Restore CRP ground to PFC Program
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 14, 2005]
In Siebrasse v. USDA, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that (1) the USDA’s refusal to convert land in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) back to the Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) program was not arbitrary and capricious, and (2) the agency did not facilitate a fraudulent transfer.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 17, 2006
Eighth Circuit Orders Partial Reimbursement of State Judgment
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided October 19, 2005]
In Rain & Hail Insurance Service, Inc., v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ordered reimbursement of compensatory damages issued against a crop insurer by a state court and remanded for further proceedings to determine if pre-judgment interest and court costs were also reimbursable. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 23, 2006
Eight Circuit Interprets Payment Limitation Regulations
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 27, 2005]
In Mages v. Johanns, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a farmer acting cooperatively with his parents' corporation was nonetheless a separate and distinct entity and that the farmer did not engage in a scheme or device to circumvent payment limitations. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 23, 2006.
Bivens Remedy Not Available in Action
Against Federal Meat Inspectors
Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law and Staff Attorney
[Case decided February 28, 2005]
In Nebraska Beef, Ltd. v. Greening, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed an action brought by the operator of a meat processing facility against federal meat inspectors because the operator lacked a remedy for which it could bring an action against federal officials or employees. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 29, 2005
Raisin Handler Denied, Allowed Access to Documents Under FOIA
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
[Case decided January 15, 2004]
In Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Agric., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a Department of Agriculture determination to deny under the "trade secrets" and "law enforcement" exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) a raisin handler's request for documents. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 8, 2006
Environmental Group Fails to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 15, 2005]
In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota dismissed Defenders of Wildlife as a plaintiff in the action because it had failed to exhaust all available administrative remedies. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Request to Supplement Administrative Record in
Judicial Review Denied
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 15, 2005]
In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota denied Sierra Club's request to supplement the existing administrative record in judicial review of the United States Forest Service's actions. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Effect of Timber Project Upon Lynx Habitat
Sufficiently Considered
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 15, 2005]
In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that the United States Forest Service properly considered the effect of a timber project upon the habitat of Canada lynx and that the Service's conclusion was not arbitrary and capricious. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Environmental Assessment Not Required to Contain
Population Data for Indicator Species
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 15, 2005]
In Sierra Club v. Bosworth, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled that an Environmental Assessment prepared by the Forest Service was not required to contain population data on indicator species within the area affected by the Big Grass Timber Sale.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Producer Maintains Right to Challenge
Wetlands Determination
Steven White
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In B & D Land and Livestock Co. v. Veneman, the Untied States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that a producer did not waive his right to challenge a USDA wetland determination.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 16, 2005
Producers' Failure to Reaffirm PFCs Prior to
Discharge Terminated Payments
Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In McKown v. United States Dep't of Agric., the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico held that a USDA decision to terminate two producers' Production Flexibility Contract (PFC) payments and subsequent Market Loss Assistance Program (MLAP) payments was subject to judicial review. The court also held that the producers' failure to reaffirm their PFC contracts prior to their bankruptcy discharge terminated their right to subsequent PFC payments. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies as Jurisdictional
Requirement Not Mandated
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Avocados Plus Incorporated v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that provisions of the Hass Avocado Promotion, Research, and Information Act (Avocado Act) did not require exhaustion of administrative remedies as a jurisdictional requirement. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Aug. 3, 2004
Aggregation of Entities Not Required In Determining
Net Worth Under EAJA
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal Claims held that the net worth of two other business related to an entity that requested attorneys' fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) was irrelevant for purposes of determining whether the EAJA claimant was eligible to collect attorneys' fees and costs under EAJA. The court ruled on other grounds that the plaintiff was precluded from collecting attorneys' fees and costs under EAJA because it failed to satisfy certain eligibility requirements. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Aug. 3, 2004
Milk Handlers' and Producer's Claims Dismissed
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant
In Northwest Independent Producers Ass'n v. Veneman, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought by milk handlers because the handlers failed to exhaust their administrative remedies in accordance with the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 (AMAA). The court also held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over claims brought by a milk producer. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 14, 2004
National Appeals Order Subject to Judicial Review
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant
In Payton v. United States Dep't of Agric., the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a district court had jurisdiction to review a farmer's challenge to a National Appeals Division (NAD) decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 23, 2004
Court Issues Preliminary Injunction Enjoining USDA
Action on Mad Cow Disease
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund v. Veneman, the United States District Court for the District of Montana issued a preliminary injunction that enjoined the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) from implementing the terms of an agency memorandum that would have lifted a prohibition "on the importation of most kinds of bovine meat and other tissue from Canada for human consumption." Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2004
Dairy Farmers May Challenge Milk Marketing Order, Received
Adequate Notice of Rulemaking
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Alto Dairy v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that several dairy farmers had a right to challenge a final rule issued by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in federal court and that the farmers were given sufficient notice of the USDA's rulemaking proceeding. Read the full case summary.
Posted: May 17, 2004
D.C. Circuit Vacates, Remands Challenge to
Dairy Assistance Program
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Milk Train, Inc. v. Veneman, the D.C. Circuit held that a federal district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider a challenge to the manner in which the USDA Secretary implemented a dairy subsidy program because the Secretary's action was "committed to agency discretion by law" in accordance with § 701(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The D.C. Circuit further held that another of the operations' challenges to the Secretary's action was not precluded from judicial review by the federal district court because the authorizing statute "affords a 'statutory reference point' by which the court is able to review the Secretary's determination . . . ."
Read the full case summary.
Posted: May 17, 2004
Sixth Circuit Holds Untimely Notice of Appeal
Not Excused by Equitable Tolling
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Reinhart v. United States Dep't of Agric., the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit dismissed an appeal from an order issued by the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) because notice of the appeal was filed untimely. Read the full case summary.
Posted: May 17, 2004
7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) Inapplicable in Rural Housing Service Dispute
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In United States v. Childers,the Ohio Court of Appeals held that 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e), a statute that requires a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies before it may bring a judicial action, was inapplicable. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Insurance Companies Fail to Exhaust Administrative Remedies
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Ace Property & Cas. Ins. Co. v. United States, the United States Court of Federal of Claims held that it lacked jurisdiction because the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
"Merrill Doctrine" Inapplicable to Reinsured Private Crop Insurers
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Dailey v. American Growers Ins., the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that the "Merrill doctrine" is inapplicable to private crop insurers reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Agency Issues Legislative Rule in Violation of
Administrative Procedures Act
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
n Hemp Industries Ass'n v. Drug Enforcement Admin., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that a rule issued by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was a procedurally invalid legislative rule because the DEA failed to comply with the notice and comment requirements established by the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Plaintiffs Exhaust Administrative Remedies for One Claim,
Fail to Exhaust Other Claim
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies for one of their claims against the United States Forest Service (USFS) pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 6912(e) because the plaintiffs did not raise the claim during the administrative proceedings. The Ninth Circuit also held that another of the plaintiffs' claims had been properly raised during administrative proceedings and therefore was not barred from judicial review by the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Farm Credit Administration Required to Respond to Lender's Comment
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Louisiana Federal Land Bank Ass'n v. Farm Credit Administration, the D.C. Circuit held that in promulgating a final rule the Farm Credit Administration (FCA) was required to respond to a comment submitted by lenders within the Farm Credit System (FCS). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Failure to Control Weeds Causes Reduction in Farm Program Payment
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Bishop v. Veneman, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas affirmed a National Appeals Division determination that a farmer's production flexibility contract payments were properly reduced as a result of the farmer's failure to control weeds. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 17, 2004
Agriculture and Urbanization
Nuisance Claim Barred Against Grain Elevator
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided Feburary 16, 2005]
In Tibert v. Slominski, 692 N.W.2d 133 (N.D. 2005), the Supreme Court of North Dakota ruled that a nuisance claim was barred against a grain elevator owned and operated by Minto Grain, LLC. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Stray Voltage Lawsuit Not Barred by Statute of Limitations
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 15, 2005]
In Allen v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp.dairy farmer Russell Allen filed suit against an electric utility company alleging that his farming operation had been negligently damaged by stray voltage. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Damage Award Upheld in Stray Voltage Lawsuit
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 15, 2005]
In Allen v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp., dairy farmer Russell Allen received a jury award of "$750,000 in economic damages and one million dollars in nuisance damages" in a stray voltage lawsuit filed against his electric company. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Treble Damages Not Allowed in Stray Voltage Lawsuit
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 15, 2005]
In Allen v. Wisconsin Public Service Corp., dairy farmer Russell Allen received an award of damages in a stray voltage lawsuit filed against his electric company. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Zoning By-laws Prohibit Operation of Commercial Stable
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 29, 2004]
In Winer v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Harwich, the Superior Court of Massachusetts held that Plaintiff Eric Winer was required to discontinue his operation of a commercial stable and riding ring. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Farmers Enjoined From Discharging Waste Water
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 29, 2004]
In King v. Van Setten, the defendants grew "barley on the[ir] property and flood irrigate[d] the barley for a period of eight to ten days each year."
Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Pollution Control Law Does Not Provide for Private Right of
Action Against Hog Farm
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 21, 2004]
In In re Moore, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Mississippi dismissed a nuisance claim filed against several hog farms. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Hog Confinement Operations Ruled to Constitute a Private Nuisance
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 15, 2004]
In Stephens v. Pillen, a group of eighteen plaintiffs filed suit against the owners of four large hog confinement operations, alleging that the odor from the operations constituted a private nuisance. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Neighbors of Hog Confinement Operation Entitled to Monetary Damages
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 15, 2004]
In Stephens v. Pillen, the Court of Appeals of Nebraska ruled that four large hog confinement operations constituted a private nuisance as a result of odors emanating from the confinement facilities. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Agricultural Preservation Zoning District Does Not Result in
Confiscation of Property
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided September 22, 2004]
In McGonigle v. Lower Heidelberg Township Zoning Hearing Board, the plaintiff owned a 38.5 acre tract of land located in an Agricultural Preservation zoning district. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Mere Pasturing of a Horse Does Not Constitute a Nuisance
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 10, 2004]
In Turner v. Caplan, residential landowners sought injunctive relief to prevent an adjoining landowner from pasturing his horse in their subdivision. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Protective Covenants Permit Pasturing of a Horse
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 10, 2004]
In Turner v. Caplan, 596 S.E.2d 525 (Va. 2004), residential landowners sought injunctive relief to prevent an adjoining landowner from pasturing his horse in their subdivision. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Transfer of Family Farm Water Permit to Municipality Denied
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 16, 2004]
In City of West Richland v. Department of Ecology, John Michel obtained two ground water permits under the Family Farm Water Act (FFWA)to irrigate his farmland and to provide a "continuous single domestic supply." Subsequently, Mr. Michel transferred his permit rights to the City of West Richland (City) for "use by the City as municipal water supply, mainly lawn irrigation." Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Agricultural Preservation Zone Not Impermissible Spot Zoning
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 15, 2004]
In Christman v. Zoning Hearing Board of the Township of Windsor, landowners "challenged inclusion of their property in a new agricultural preservation zone" by arguing that "the boundaries of the new zone constitute[d] 'spot zoning.'" Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Farming Operations May Not Be Prohibited in Agricultural District
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 16, 2004]
In Inter-Lakes Health, Inc., v. Town of Ticonderoga Town Board, Bruce and Karen Crammond owned several hundred acres located within a designated agricultural district in Essex County, New York. A small portion of their land was located in a zoning area which prohibited farming and farming-related activities. To remedy a conflict between the New York State Agriculture and Markets Law and the zoning ordinance, the Town of Ticonderoga amended the zoning ordinance to permit farm operations within the agricultural district. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Nuisance Claim Barred Against Grain Elevator
Ross Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 16, 2005]
In Tibert v. Slominski, the Supreme Court of North Dakota ruled that a nuisance claim was barred against a grain elevator owned and operated by Minto Grain, LLC. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Indoor Composting Facility a "Farm" Under Right to Farm Act
Bose Emelle
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided October 19, 2004]
In Vicwood Meridian Partnership v. Skagit Sand and Gravel, the Washington Court of Appeals held that an indoor composting facility for a mushroom farm qualified as a "farm" under the Washington Right-to-Farm Act. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 21, 2005
Right to Farm Act Exempts Operation From Local Zoning Laws
Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided August 17, 2004]
In Village of Rothbury v. Double JJ Resort Ranch, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a defendant's horse riding stable was a farm operation and that the horse rides it offered were farm products and therefore the defendant was exempted from local zoning regulations by the Michigan Right to Farm Act. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 21, 2005
Construction of Poultry House Would Constitute Nuisance
Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided August 24, 2004]
In Payne v. Terrell, the Georgia Court of Appeals held that evidence produced before a trial court was sufficient to establish that the construction of poultry houses would constitute a nuisance and deprive property owners the legitimate use of their property. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 21, 2005
Immunity Provision of Smoke Management and Crop Residue
Disposal Act Upheld as Constitutional
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Moon v. North Idaho Farmers Ass'n, the Idaho Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the immunity provision of Idaho's Smoke Management and Crop Residue Disposal Act, Idaho Code § 22-4803A(6). The court held that § 22-4803A(6) was not an unconstitutional taking of property under the United States or Idaho Constitutions, did not violate Article I, § 1 of the Idaho Constitution, and was not a local or special law in violation of Article III, § 19 of the Idaho Constitution.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Nuisance Protection for Animal Feeding Operations Held Unconstitutional
Jennifer Williams
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Gacke v. Pork Xtra, L.L.C., the Iowa Supreme Court held that a Right-to-Farm law that purported to provide nuisance immunity to animal feeding operations violated the Iowa constitution "to the extent it deprives property owners of a remedy for the taking of their property resulting from a nuisance created by an animal feeding operation." The court also held that the Right-to-Farm law violated the Iowa constitution as an unreasonable exercise of the state's police power. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Chicken Manure Used in Worm Farm Is Not "Solid Waste"
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Littleton v. Whatcom County, the Washington Court of Appeals ruled that agricultural manure used in an agricultural operation was not "solid waste" as that term was defined in Washington's solid waste management statute. The court therefore held that a worm farmer who utilized chicken manure in his operation was not required to obtain a solid waste handling permit. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Use of Dogs on Goat Farm Constitute Acceptable "Farming Practice"
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant
In Hood River County v. Mazzara, the Oregon Court of Appeals held that the Oregon Right-to-Farm Law precluded a determination that a farmer violated a county ordinance that prohibited an owner of dogs from allowing their dogs to become a public nuisance.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 8, 2004
Trial Court Bound by Jury Determination That
Hog Farm Not a Nuisance
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant
In Wootten v. Ivey, the Alabama Supreme Court held that a trial court was bound by a jury's determination that a hog farm did not constitute a nuisance.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 8, 2004
Right to Farm Act Bars Nuisance Suits
Mengesha Tadesse Seyoum
National AgLaw Center Research Fellow
In Holubec v. Brandenberger, the Supreme Court of Texas held that nuisance suits brought against agricultural operations are prohibited if the alleged nuisance remains substantially unchanged for one year.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 27, 2004
Hog Farm Sued for Nuisance, Trespass
Ursula T. Ransburg
National AgLaw Center Research Fellow
In Wendinger v. Forst Farms, Inc., the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that invasive odors that emanated from a hog manure lagoon did not give rise to an action for trespass, that wrongful conduct need not be established in order to maintain a nuisance action, and that there was no absolute two-year statute of limitations with respect to nuisance claims brought against agricultural operations. It also held that agricultural operations do not have an affirmative defense against nuisance claims based on their compliance with "generally accepted agricultural practices" as provided under Minnesota law and that further fact-finding was required to determine whether a relationship between a hog farm operation and hog processor constituted an agency relationship.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 27, 2004
Animal Feeding Operations
Court Upholds Issuance of an Air Pollution Control Permit to CAFO
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided November 30, 2006]
In Sierra Club v. Mississippi Environmental Quality Permit Board, the Supreme Court of Mississippi affirmed the chancery court's order affirming the issuance of an air pollution control permit to an owner of a confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) by the Environmental Quality Permit Board (Permit Board). Read the full case summary.
Posted: April 23, 2008
Adoption and Amendment of Zoning Ordinances
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided November 29, 2006]
In Schafer v. Deuel County Board Of Commissioners, the Supreme Court of South Dakota reversed a circuit court's grant of a writ of mandamus to compel the county board of commissioners to enact initiative petitions regarding zoning ordinances. Read the full case summary.
Posted: April 23, 2008
CAFOs to Be Included in Wasteload Allocation
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided June 23, 2005]
In Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Minnesota District Court granted the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy's (MCEA) motion for summary judgment in part and denied the motion in part as moot. Read the full case summary.
Posted: April 23, 2008
Second Hearing Required After Withdrawal of Application
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided December 7, 2006]
In Thomas v. Oolman Dairy, LLC, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order that reversed the Blackford County Area Board of Zoning Appeal's decision because it was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law. The Board was required to hold an evidentiary hearing on an application for special exception filed by Oolman Dairy. Read the full case summary.
Posted: February 14, 2008
Court Grants Summary Judgment for CAFO on CWA and RCRA Claims
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided July 17, 2007]
In Coon v. Willet Dairy, LP, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York granted defendants' motion for summary judgment with regard to plaintiffs' Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Rivers and Harbors Act, and the New York Environmental Conservation Law claims that arose from defendants' operation of a large agricultural business. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
Unfiled Nutrition Management Plans Subject to Disclosure
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided August 28, 2006]
In Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Idaho State Dep't of Agriculture, the Supreme Court of Idaho upheld the District Court of Ada County's ruling that nutrition management plans (NMPs) filed without using the Idaho OnePlan system were matters of public record available to the public regardless of whether the NMPs were no longer housed at the Idaho State Department of Agriculture. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
EPA's Methodology Agreement with AFO Is Enforcement Action and Not Reviewable by the Court
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided July 17, 2007]
In Ass'n of Irritated Residents v. Envtl. Protection Agency, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia dismissed the petition for review of agreements between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and animal feeding operations (AFOs) because the agreements did not constitute rules, but rather enforcement actions, and exercises of the EPA's enforcement discretion are not reviewable by the court. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
EPA Determination That CAFOs Do Not Need Antidegradation Review Not Arbitrary
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided March 31, 2006]
In Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson, the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it found that the EPA did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in eleven decisions raised by the parties. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
Motion to Dismiss Denied as Plaintiff Had Standing to Bring Suit Under CWA
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided July 30, 2007]
In Kersenbrock v. Stoneman Cattle Co., LLC, the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied Stoneman Cattle Company's motion to dismiss for lack of federal subject-matter jurisdiction because plaintiff established that she had standing to bring suit under the Clean Water Act (CWA). Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
Plaintiff Must Provide Sufficient Response to Contention Interrogatories When Information is Known
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided February 26, 2007]
In State of Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma granted defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.'s motion to compel the plaintiff to fully answer interrogatories served on the plaintiff. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
Odors from Pig Farm Are Within Insurance Policy's Pollution Exclusion
Kaycee Wolf
National AgLaw Center Research Associate
[Case decided May 15, 2007]
In Wakefield Pork, Inc. v. RAM Mut. Ins. Co., the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of RAM Mutual Insurance Company (RAM) because, although a complaint against Forst Farms for offensive odors would be considered an "occurrence" under the policy, it is excluded from coverage under the pollution exclusion and RAM did not have a duty to defend Forst Farms. Read the full case summary.
Posted: January 10, 2008
CAFO Classified as 'Preexisting Use'
Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 5, 2006]
In Jensen v. Lincoln County Board of Commissioners, the Supreme Court of South Dakota held that the appellee County's evidence was sufficient to establish that a feedlot in question was a preexisting use, and thus that county was required under its zoning ordinance to grant a conditional use permit. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Motion to Dismiss Clean Air Act Action Against
Dairy Operation Denied
Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law
[Case decided December 2, 2005]
In Association of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied defendants’ motion to dismiss an action brought against it by an unincorporated association under the Clean Air Act (CAA). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 31, 2006
Entire Hog Farming Complex Constitutes "Facility" Under CERCLA
Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law & Staff Attorney
[Case decided October 28, 2004]
In Sierra Club v. Seaboard Farms, Inc., 387 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir. 2004), the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that an entire hog farming complex constituted a single "facility" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675, and was therefore subject to the CERCLA reporting requirements, 42 U.S.C. § 9603, for above-threshold releases of hazardous substances from a facility. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Aug. 25, 2005
Entire Chicken Production Operation Constitutes "Facility" Under CERCLA
Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law and Staff Attorney
[Case decided November 7, 2003]
In Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 299 F.Supp.2d 693 (W.D. Ky. 2003), the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky held that each of four multi-house chicken production operations constituted a "facility" under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Aug. 25, 2005
Oil and Gas Lessee Entitled to Recover for Damage
Caused by Livestock Waste
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 24, 2004]
In Test Drilling Service Co. v. Hanor Co., an oil and gas lessee sued various entities "involved in the design, construction, maintenance, and/or operation of hog confinement facilities adjacent to the land subject to [the] oil and gas agreements." Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2005
Second Circuit Vacates Portions of CAFO Regulations
Under Clean Water Act
Elizabeth Smith McKinney
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 28, 2005]
In Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held several regulations promulgated by the EPA for the abatement and control of water pollutant emissions from concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) under the Clean Water Act (CWA) were a violation of the express terms of the CWA or were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 8, 2005
Decree Enforcing a Mediated Settlement of a
Nuisance Action Is Affirmed
Elizabeth Smith McKinney
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 3, 2004]
In Sierra Club v. Wayne Weber, L.L.C., 689 N.W.2d 696 (Iowa 2004), the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a trial court's decree that resolved the disputed terms of a mediated settlement agreement of a nuisance action. The court also upheld the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to a livestock producer regarding whether he was required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the livestock confinement facilities. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 21, 2005
County Health Ordinance Targeting CAFOs Unenforceable
Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Worth County Friends of Agric. v. Worth County, the Supreme Court of Iowa held that a statute enacted by the state legislature to prevent county regulation of concentrated livestock facilities was constitutional and that it expressly preempted a county ordinance imposing certain standards on concentrated livestock operations. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Nuisance Lawsuit Against Texas Feedlot Barred
by Statute of Repose
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Barrera v. Hondo Creek Cattle Co., the Court of Appeals of Texas ruled that the Texas Agriculture Code's statute of repose, Tex. Agric. Code Ann. § 251.004(a) (2004), barred a nuisance lawsuit filed by neighbors against a cattle feedlot operator. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
County's Regulation of Concentrated Livestock Operations Upheld
Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Premium Farms v. County of Holt, the Supreme Court of Nebraska held that a county ordinance that regulated the land use of concentrated livestock operations was enforceable and did not exceed the zoning authority of the county that enacted the ordinance. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
County CAFO Resolution Exceeds Home Rule Authority
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In David v. Board of Comm'rs of Norton County, the Kansas Supreme Court held that a county resolution that regulated concentrated animal feeding operations was invalid because it exceeded the county's home rule authority. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 14, 2004
Antitrust
Cattle Marketing Agreements Do Not Violate
Packers & Stockyards Act
Alison E. Peck
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided August 16, 2005]
In Pickett v. Tyson Fresh Meats Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs, a class of cattle producers who sold to a meat packer exclusively on the cash market, failed to show that the packer's cattle marketing agreements violated the Packers and Stockyards Act ("PSA"). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 23, 2005
"Filed Rate Doctrine" Does Not Bar Antitrust Lawsuit
Against Dairy Cooperatives
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that the "filed rate doctrine" did not apply where an ice cream manufacturer alleged that dairy cooperatives and other dairy producers and processors had engaged in price-fixing to inflate the wholesale prices of dairy products in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Manufacturer Allowed to Pursue Antitrust
Lawsuit
Against Dairy Cooperatives
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Ice Cream Liquidation, Inc., v. Land O'Lakes, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled that an ice cream manufacturer had standing to pursue claims against dairy cooperatives for inflating the wholesale prices of dairy products in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Smithfield Foods Not Subject to Jurisdiction for
Alleged Antitrust Violations
Jennifer Williams
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., the United States District Court of the District of Columbia held that Smithfield Foods, Inc. (Smithfield) was not subject to personal jurisdiction as a result of its own activities or that of its subsidiaries. The court also held that when deciding jurisdiction based on actions of subsidiaries under § 12 of the Clayton Act that only actions of subsidiaries "involved in alleged violations of the Act" should be considered.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Bankruptcy
Objection to Debtor's Claim of Exempt Rural Homestead Property Held in CRP Denied
Chuck Munson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided September 18, 2003]
In In Re Baker, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the debtor's usage of her land tract for cattle grazing and hunting satisfied her burden of establishing a rural homestead under Texas law. The court found that the fact that the debtor's tract had been placed in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) did not terminate her homestead rights, and that the debtor's contract for sale of her undivided interest in that tract, which had not yet closed as of her bankruptcy filing, did not divest the land of its homestead protection. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Dairy Cattle ALease@ Determined to Be Disguised Secured Transaction
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 26, 2005]
In In re Buehne Farms, Inc., the debtor Buehne Farms, Inc. entered into two ADairy Cattle Lease@ agreements with Ag Lease or Loan, L.L.C. for the acquisition of dairy cattle. Under the leases, the Debtor would make monthly payments for a fifty-month term, with an option to purchase the cattle upon the expiration of the agreement. The Bankruptcy Court held that the Agreements were disguised security agreements rather than true leases. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Crop Disaster Payments Enacted Post-Petition Are Not
Property of the Estate
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 30, 2006]
In In re Bracewell, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court and held that the post-petition crop disaster payments were not property of the estate because the debtor did not have a legal or equitable interest in the government payments until the legislation became law. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
11 U.S.C § 552 Severs Post-Petition Security Interest in Payments
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided August 1, 2006]
In In re Regions Bank, the Western District of Louisiana affirmed the Bankruptcy Court and hald that 11 U.S.C. § 552 severed any pre-petition security interest in the debtor’s post-petition direct and counter-cyclical government payments. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Debtor Received Proper Notice of Offset by USDA
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 29, 2006]
In In re Huff the Western District of Pennsylvania reversed the Bankruptcy Court and held the USDA properly offset the debtor’s pre-petition income tax refunds. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Definition of “Farming Operation” Includes the Breeding, Raising
and Sale of Horses
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 25, 2006]
In In re Buchanan the Middle District of Tennessee affirmed the Bankruptcy Court and held Chapter 12 debtors who bred, boarded and sold walking horses were “farmers” engaged in a “farming operation” and therefore eligible for Chapter 12 relief. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Peanut Quota Payments Property of the Estate But Not
Transitional Producer Payments
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided April 15, 2005]
In In re Evans the Eastern District of North Carolina Bankruptcy Court held that post-petition transitional producer payments were not “property of the estate;” however, unlike the direct payments, post-petition transitional tobacco quota holder payments were “property of the estate” because the quota payments were an identifiable pre-petition property interest. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Jointly Payable Check Constituted an “Authenticated Record”
for Perfection Purposes
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 24, 2006]
In In re Clayson the Western District of New York Bankruptcy Court held a secured creditor who failed to perfects its lien by filing a finance statement, later perfected its lien when the auctioneer who sold the collateral acknowledged possession of the proceeds on behalf of the secured creditor by remitting a jointly payable check to the secured creditor. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Bank Failed to Establish Requisite Reliance and Intent
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 7, 2005]
In In re Owens the Eastern District of Arkansas Bankruptcy Court held the Bank failed to establish (1) that it actually or reasonably relied on the inaccurate financial statements of the debtors and (2) that the debtors acted with the requisite intent to deceive the Bank, and therefore the indebtedness owed to the Bank was discharged. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Contract Seller Failed to Establish Pig Feeder Acted Maliciously
Jeffrey A. Peterson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided April 11, 2005]
In In re Gehl the Northern District of Iowa Bankruptcy Court held the Contract Buyer failed to prove (1) that the debtor acted with fraudulent intent when the underlying production contract was executed and (2) that the debtor acted willfully and maliciously. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Mortgagee, Not Debtor, Entitled to Proceeds of Fire Insurance Policy
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 21, 2005]
In In re Alexander, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia determined that a Chapter 12 debtor was not entitled to receive the proceeds of a fire insurance policy issued to a mortgagee as a result of arson-caused fire damage to three of the debtor’s poultry houses.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 17, 2006
Objection to Debtor’s Claim for “Tools of the Trade”
Exemption Rejected
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided May 26, 2005]
In In re Hogrefe, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa rejected a trustee’s objection to a debtor’s claim to exempt a fifth-wheel trailer as a tool of the trade in the debtor’s farming activities.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 17, 2006
Bankruptcy Petition Dismissed for Failure to Receive
Prepetition Counseling
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 17, 2006]
In In re Dixon, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a bankruptcy court’s decision to dismiss a debtor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition because the debtor failed to receive a prepetition credit briefing, as required by the Bankruptcy Code, which was amended by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. Dixon arises in a non-agriculture context, but the issue involved (prepetition credit counseling) is notable because it is applicable to agricultural producers who file for bankruptcy protection. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 31, 2006
Eighth Circuit Holds “Farmer Status” Waivable Affirmative
Defense to Involuntary Bankruptcy Petition
Patrick Roberts
Naitonal AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 22, 2005]
In In re Marlar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in a matter of apparent first impression that “farmer status” is not jurisdictional in nature but rather is an affirmative defense in an involuntary bankruptcy proceeding that must be timely raised. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 23, 2006
Fifth Circuit Holds Postpetition Disaster-Relief Payments
Not Property of the Estate
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 27, 2006]
In In re Burgess, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that postpetition disaster-relief payments were not property of the bankruptcy estate or proceeds of estate property. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 6, 2006
Co-debtor Not Protected by Automatic Stay
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided November 30, 2004]
In In re William Michael Laufenbergi, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit determined that a co-debtor, as a third party, was not protected by the filing of an automatic stay.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Crop Assistance Payment Not Property of the Estate
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 30, 2005]
In In re Bracewell, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia affirmed in part and reversed in part a bankruptcy court's ruling that certain crop payments were property of the Chapter 7 estate. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Dairy Farmers' Plan Confirmed Despite Oversecured
Creditor's Objection
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided April 2, 2004]
In In re Richards, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa determined that debtors' reorganization plan should be confirmed despite an oversecured creditor's objection because it adequately provided for the payment of creditor's secured claims. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Denial of Confirmation and Dismissal in Chapter 12
Proceedings Affirmed
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 16, 2004]
In In re Vincent William Michels, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Eighth Circuit held the denial of confirmation and dismissal of debtor's Chapter 12 case to be proper. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Chapter 12 Debtors Allowed to Exercise "Cramdown" Rights
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 27, 2004]
In In re Dany Yett, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit confirmed, over a secured creditor's objection, a Chapter 12 plan that neither cured an existing default nor provided for payment at the contractual interest rate. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Chapter 12 Debtors Fail to Properly Assume
Crop Share Lease
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 1, 2004]
In In re Jamie D. Six, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that Chapter 12 debtors failed to properly assume an oral crop share lease in accordance with 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(4). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 2, 2005
Proceeds of Production Contract Are Property of the Estate
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided May 4, 2005]
In In Re Jimmy C. Brown, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia determined that proceeds from a production contract were property of the estate because the contract language was an authorization directing payment and not an assignment of rights. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 5, 2005
Bankruptcy Fraud Convictions Against Farmers Affirmed
Patrick Roberts
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 14, 2005]
In United States v. Ryder, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that farmers who filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition were guilty of money laundering and knowingly and fraudulently concealing estate assets from the bankruptcy trustee. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 23, 2005
Crop Disaster Payments Not Property of Estate
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 6, 2004]
In In re Burgess, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a crop disaster payment made to a Chapter 7 debtor was not property of the estate. In so holding, the Fifth Circuit reversed the holding of the bankruptcy court and the federal district court that initially decided the matter. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 26, 2005
Nonstock Cooperative Considered a "Farmer" Under Bankruptcy Code
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided December 16, 2004]
In In re Corn-Pro Nonstock Cooperative, Inc., the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that an agricultural cooperative was a farmer engaged in a farming operation under the Bankruptcy Code because it had a significant degree of engagement in, played a significant role in, and had an ownership interest in the raising of its livestock.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Mortgages Do Not Create Security Interest in Growing Crops
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided January 8, 2004]
In In re Ellis, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma held that a bank could not except a debt from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6) because the bank did not adequately describe the land on which debtors' crops were growing. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Creditor's Motion for Adequate Protection Denied
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided September 30, 2003]
In Zink v. Vanmiddlesworth, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York held that the bankruptcy judge did not err in denying plaintiffs' motion for adequate protection because they had not met their burden of proof. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 23, 2005
Chapter 12 Debtors Not Entitled to Hardship Discharge
Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided May 12, 2003]
In In re Grooms, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that Chapter 12 debtors were not entitled to a hardship discharge despite the fact that the county in which debtors farmed was declared a federal disaster area for three years in a row. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 21, 2005
Debtors' Pre-petition Right to LDP
Payments May Be Setoff
Alfred N. Milam
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Gibson, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas held that where debtor-farmers satisfied all requirements for payment under the loan deficiency payment program before filing a bankruptcy petition, the payments that would have accrued pre-petition could be set setoff by the federal government against debtor's own loan liability to government. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 16, 2005
Farm Service Agency Lacks Right to Setoff
Debtors' PFC Payments
Dawn M. Stidd
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In United States of America v. Myers, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that the Farm Service Agency (FSA) was unable to offset production flexibility contract (PFC) payments issued by the Commodity Credit Corporation to two Chapter 12 debtors because the debt arose post-petition. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 16, 2005
Joint Venture Farming Satisfies the Definition of "Farmer"
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Bli, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held that debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases were ineligible for conversion to a Chapter 7 under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(c). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Right to Crop Disaster Payment Is Property of Bankruptcy Estate
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Bracewell, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that a crop disaster payment was part of a debtor's bankruptcy estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Conversion to Chapter 12 Proper Due to Retroactive Application
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Campbell, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma had the authority to convert debtors Chapter 13 case to Chapter 12 even though Chapter 12 was unavailable at the time debtors initially filed their bankruptcy petition. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Farmer-Debtor Allowed to Convert to Chapter 7
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Croston, the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a bankruptcy court's decision to deny Chapter 7 debtors' motion to convert to Chapter 13.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Boilerplate Language in Security Agreement Does Not
Create Fiduciary Relationship
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Ellis, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma held that boilerplate language in a security agreement did not create a fiduciary relationship between debtors and a bank. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
MLAP Payment Property of Estate But Not Subject to
Bank's Security Interest
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Klenke, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas held that Klenke's 2001 Marketing Loss Assistance Program (MLAP) payment received after the filing of a Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition was property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1207(a)(1) but was not subject to a bank's security interest pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 522(a).
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Internal Revenue Service Objections in Farmer
Bankruptcy Rejected
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Petersen, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa rejected Internal Revenue Service (I.R.S.) objections regarding a farmer-debtor's discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2)(A), or in the alternative, excepting the I.R.S. tax claim from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(1)(C). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Tools of Trade Exemption Not Restricted to
"Principal" Trade or Business
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Thompson, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas held that Chapter 13 debtors could exempt as tools of trade equipment necessary in the raising of game birds.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 6, 2005
Farmer Not Forced to Convert to Chapter 7
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Fonke, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas held that a debtor was not a farmer for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 1307(e) because at least 80% of his gross income did not derive from farming.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 15, 2004
Farm Buildings Are Personal Property Under Ohio Law
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Jarvis, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio held that farrowing and gestation buildings did not become fixtures on debtors' land, and thus were not subject to a commercial lender's mortgage liens.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 15, 2004
Sale of Property to Corporation or Operation of a Business Thereon
Does Not Destroy Homestead Exemption
Joshua Thomas Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Perry, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a bankruptcy court erred in holding that debtors could not claim a homestead exemption for their 26-acre tract because it had been sold to their wholly-owned corporation or because a business was operated thereon.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 9, 2004
Debtors Allowed to Avoid Bank's Security Interest
in Machinery, Equipment, and Tools
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Lund, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that debtors could avoid a bank's security interest in machinery, equipment, and tools related to farming under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f)(1)(B)(ii).
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2004
Post-Confirmation Attorney Fees in Chapter 12 Case Denied
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Nilges, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa held that a law firm that represented Chapter 12 debtors was not entitled to collect certain post-confirmation attorney fees.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2004
Debtor-Dairy Farmer's Payments Not Exempted Under
Federal Garnishment Law
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Riendeau, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the garnishment restrictions set forth in the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1673, did not automatically apply in a debtor-dairy farmer's bankruptcy proceedings.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2004
Replacement Value of Debtor's Farmland Should Be
Akin to Fair Market Value
Bhargavi Motukuri
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Bell, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana held that in determining the replacement value of debtors' property for purposes of Chapter 12 bankruptcy plan confirmation, the court would value the property based on the amount the debtor would have to pay for comparable property and not the contemplated use of the property.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Bankruptcy Court Permits Farmer to Discharge Debt Owed to Bank
Ross H. Pifer
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Mau, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of Illinois held that a farmer's debts to a bank were dischargeable in bankruptcy where the bank had not satisfied its burden of proving nondischargeability.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Debtor Found to Have Converted Crop Insurance Proceeds
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Thiara, the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit held that a crop insurance payment to a debtor was considered crop proceeds and thus subject to a security interest held by creditor.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Supreme Court Holds "Formula Rate" Best for
Determining "Cramdown" Interest Rate
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Till v. SCS Credit Corporation, a plurality of the United States Supreme Court held that the formula rate was the best method for determining the "cramdown" interest rate to be paid a creditor over the course of a Chapter 13 plan.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 13, 2004
Post-Confirmation Conversion of Land to Conservation
Reserve Program Does not Violate Chapter 12 Eligibility
Steve White
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Clark, the United States Bankruptcy Court found that a debtor's eligibility for Chapter 12 bankruptcy was not violated when the debtor proposed to enroll all land in the Conservation Reserve Program post-confirmation.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 14, 2004
Horses and Heifers Considered "Tools of the Trade"
Joshua T. Crain
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistan
In In re Gray, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri held that debtors' horses and heifers were exempted as "tools of the trade."
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 14, 2004
Funding for Chapter 12 Plans Not Required to
Come from Farming Operations
Jennifer Williams
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistan
In In re Sorrell, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah held that debtors qualified for Chapter 12 relief as "family farmers" even though their bankruptcy plan was not "substantially funded from farming operations."
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 14, 2004
Chapter 12 Debtors Not Allowed to Convert to Chapter 11
Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistan
In In re Stumbo, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Iowa held that it could not properly convert debtors' Chapter 12 bankruptcy case to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 14, 2004
Court Considers Dischargeability of Patent
Infringement Judgment
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In In re Wood, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Tennessee held that damages incurred as a result of a debtor's patent infringement of a seed technology was a nondischargeable debt, while the debtor's infringement of another seed technology was dischargeable.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2004
Farmer's Selling of Secured Collateral Not Malicious
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Research Assistant
In In re Logue the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) for the Eight Circuit held that a debtor did not act with malice when he sold cattle not in accordance with the security agreement he executed in favor of a bank, used sales proceeds to feed and maintain the cattle rather than delivering those proceeds to the creditor, and allegedly failed to diligently pursue other financing options.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Apr. 30, 2004
Farm Program Payments Not Exempt as "Public Assistance Benefits"
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In In re Wilson the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa held in a matter of first impression that farm program payments received by Chapter 7 debtors were "public assistance benefits" under Iowa law and therefore exempt.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 8, 2004
Husband's Intent to Deceive Ag Lender Not Imputed to Wife
Britt T. Long
National AgLaw Center Research Fellow
In In re Gordon, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Georgia held that a debtor's obligations to an agricultural lender were dischargeable in bankruptcy because no intent to defraud could be imputed to the debtor under agency law.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 2, 2004
Chapter 12 Debtors Required to Treat All
Allowed Unsecured Claims Similarly
Gaby R. Jabbour
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In In re Baker, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that Chapter 12 debtors were required to pay in full allowed unsecured claims held by the Farm Service Agency if the debtors proposed to pay in full the allowed unsecured claims of other creditors.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 9, 2004
Pre-Petition Patent Infringement Judgment Nondischargeable
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Sixth Circuit held that a pre-petition patent infringement judgment entered against a debtor-farmer was nondischargeable in the debtor's Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. In re Trantham.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 9, 2004
Produce Seller Loses Rights to PACA Statutory Trust
David B. Whitlow
National AgLaw Center Research Fellow
In In re Delyser, 295 B.R. 430 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y.), the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of New York held that a produce seller lost its benefits in a statutory trust created by the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499t, when it failed to disclose payment terms on its invoices that differed from the payment terms set forth in PACA.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 27, 2004
Biosecurity
Convicted Corporation Has No Right to Challenge Disclosure
Craig Raysor
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 28, 2005]
In United States v. Donahoe., the District Court of Maine held that a corporation that had been convicted of a crime cannot challenge the compelled disclosure of confidential information regarding the crime that involved the same set of circumstances that gave rise to the defendant’s trial. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 4, 2007
Private Compensation for Depopulation of Diseased Birds Does
Not Violate Due Process
Craig Raysor
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 11, 2005]
In Reichley v. Penn. Dep’t of Agric., the United States Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendant because a trade association that destroyed a diseased flock did not act under the color of law for a § 1983 claim, and a state agency did not violate due process rights when it failed to provide notice and opportunity for hearing prior to destroying the flock since it provided a scheme for adequate compensation. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 6, 2006
Biotechnology
Paying Royalties for Saved Seed
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided April 20, 2006]
In Monsanto Co. v. David, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri held that Monsanto Company (hereinafter Monsanto) was entitled to a $55.04 per bag royalty for seed saved by David, a farmer, because he violated the licensing agreement that he entered into when purchasing genetically modified seed. Read the full case summary.
Posted: September 27, 2007
Patent Infringement Claim Regarding GM Corn Denied
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided May 10, 2006]
In Monsanto v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied a patent infringement claim made by Monsanto Co. against Syngenta Seeds, Inc. The court denied Monsanto's claim on the grounds that Syngenta relied upon Monsanto, the patent holder, to perform the first step in the patented process and the description of that step in the patent was not specific enough to allow for duplication without considerable experimentation. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Saving and Cleaning Seed Violates Patent
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided July 5, 2006]
In Monsanto Co. v. White, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama held that a seed processor violated the patent and licensing agreement for Roundup Ready soybeans by growing, saving, processing, and selling unlicensed soybeans of the same variety. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Hard Look Required Before Deregulating Alfalfa
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 13, 2007]
In Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) did not adequately assess the environmental impact of glyphosate-resistant alfalfa before deciding deregulate it. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Permitting Requirements for Genetically Modified Plants
Eric Pendergrass
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided September 1, 2006]
In Center for Food Safety v. Johannsthe United States District Court for the District of Hawaii held that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to conduct environmental impact studies before issuing permits for the production of genetically engineered, pharmaceutical-producing plant varieties (GEPPV). Also, the court held that issues relating to the promulgation of regulations concerning the GEPPV program were not yet ripe for review because no final agency action was taken. Read the full case summary.
Posted: July 20, 2007
Agricultural Nonprofit Cooperative Sues Seed
Company for Breach of Contract
Regina Leal de Oliveira
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided February 8, 2005]
In AgraMarke, Inc. vs. Aventis Cropscience, AgraMarke, an agricultural nonprofit cooperative, sued Aventis Cropscience and Starlink Logistics, Inc., claiming breach of contract and equitable estoppel. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 2, 2005
Patent Infringement Damages Not Limited to
Infringer's Anticipated Profits
Kaleb K. Hennigh
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
In Monsanto Co. v. Ralph, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that patent infringement damage awards were not limited to anticipated profits of an infringer and that a technology fee agreement granting royalty rights to plant seeds was not proper in calculating damages for the unlawful transfer of the patent protected seeds. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 13, 2005
Farmers Barred from Bringing Tort Claims
Against Manufacturer of GMO Seeds
Mengesha T. Seymoum
National AgLaw Center Graduate Fellow
In Sample v. Monsanto Co., the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri ruled that the "economic loss doctrine" barred plaintiffs from bringing tort claims against the producer of genetically modified corn and soybean seeds.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 9, 2004
Checkoff Decisions
Court Strikes Down As-Applied Challenge
of the Cotton Checkoff Program
Amy Miller
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided April 24, 2006]
In Cricket Hosiery, Inc. v. U.S., the Court of International Trade considered whether the Cotton Research and Promotion Act of 1966 ("Cotton Act") and the regulations implementing the Cotton Act ("Cotton Order") as applied, violated their constitutional rights of free speech and free association of plaintiffs, domestic importers of cotton and cotton products. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 27, 2006
Wild Rice Growers Failed to Show Constitutional Violation
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 14, 2005]
In J.W. DeWit Farms, Inc., v. Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council, the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment after it found the plaintiffs failed to show a First Amendment violation with regard to activities conducted by the Minnesota Cultivated Wild Rice Council. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 23, 2006
Ninth Circuit Holds Beef Checkoff May Be
Unconstitutional As Applied
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 16, 2005]
In Charter v. USDA, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the case instructing the lower court to determine whether the beef checkoff program of the Beef Promotion and Research Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911, is constitutional as applied. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Nov. 2, 2005
Growers Challenge Constitutionality of California
Plum Marketing Program
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided June 3, 2004]
In Gerawan Farming, Inc. v. A.G. Kawamura, the Supreme Court of California decided the generic advertisements of the California Plum Marketing Program (1) were part of a larger regulatory scheme and (2) should be subject to the Central Hudson test. The court remanded the case for further fact-finding in accordance with this test and so the lower court would determine whether the advertisements are government speech. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2005
Citrus Assessment Violates First Amendment
Jillian Hishaw
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided October 20, 2004]
In Department of Citrus v. Graves Brothers Co., quashed by Florida Dep't of Citrus v. Graves Bros. Co., the Florida District Court of Appeals affirmed a decision that declared unconstitutional a box tax on citrus. The tax was used to fund advertising costs incurred by the Florida Department of Citrus. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2005
United States Supreme Court Finds Beef Checkoff Constitutional
Kurt B. Olson
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided May 23, 2005]
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association, 125 S. Ct. 2055 (2005), the United States Supreme Court held that advertising funded by the beef checkoff program is government speech and thus is not susceptible to First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenges. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Sept. 15, 2005
United States Supreme Court Grants Certiorari to
Beef Checkoff Case
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Veneman v. Livestock Ass'n, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on a limited basis to determine the constitutionality of the Beef Checkoff Program. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2004
Fifth Circuit Holds Alligator Checkoff Unconstitutional
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Pelts & Skins, LLC v. Landreneau, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a state's alligator checkoff program was unconstitutional. Read the full case summary.
Posted: June 10, 2004
Third Circuit Holds Dairy Checkoff Unconstitutional
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Cochran v. Veneman, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the Dairy Promotion Program, commonly referred to as the Dairy Checkoff, is unconstitutional.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 4, 2004
Sixth Circuit Declares Pork Checkoff Unconstitutional
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the Pork Checkoff Program, comprised of the Pork Promotion, Research and Consumer Information Act (Pork Act) and its implementing regulations, was unconstitutional. Michigan Pork Producers Ass'n, Inc. v. Veneman.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Feb. 9, 2004
Eighth Circuit Rules Beef Checkoff Unconstitutional
Harrison M. Pittman
Staff Attorney
In Livestock Marketing Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't of Agriculture, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has ruled that the beef checkoff program, comprised of the Beef Promotion and Research Act and its implementing regulations, is unconstitutional.
Read the full case summary.
Posted: Jan. 27, 2004
Clean Water Act
Clean Water Act Citizen Suit Involving CAFO Dismissed for
Lack of Jurisdiction
Harrison M. Pittman
Research Assistant Professor of Law
[Case decided September 9, 2005]
In Johnson County Citizen Committee For Clean Air and Water v. EPA, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction an action that sought to compel the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take certain actions regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), on the part of a concentrated animal feeding operation. Read the full case summary.
Posted: Mar. 31, 2006
NPDES Permit Scheme Includes Sources That
Do Not Generate a Pollutant
Elizabeth Smith McKinney
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 23, 2004]
In South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, the Supreme Court of the United States held that point sources that discharge a pollutant but do not themselves generate a pollutant are within the regulatory authority of the National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDES) permit scheme of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Court also vacated the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and remanded for further proceedings the issue of whether the waters in question are two distinct bodies or "two hydrologically indistinguishable parts of a single water body." Read the full case summary.
Posted: Dec. 8, 2005
Ninth Circuit Allows Pesticide Application to
Surface Water
Without an NPDES Permit
Elizabeth Smith McKinney
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided September 8, 2005]
In Fairhurst v. Hagener, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling in favor of the Director of the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, that the Director was not required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit in accordance with the Clean Water Act (CWA) for the intentional application of a pesticide to surface water in compliance with the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Read the full case summary.
Posted: Oct. 25, 2005
Draining of Hatchery Supply Pond Potentially
Subject to § 404 Permit
Elizabeth Smith McKinney
National AgLaw Center Graduate Assistant
[Case decided March 19, 2004]
In Greenfield Mills, Inc. v. Larry Macklin, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that the draining of a fish hatchery supply pond into a nearby river constituted an "addition" of dredged spoil into a navigable water and was therefore subject to the § 404 permit requirement of the Clean Water Act ("CWA").