Justia Agriculture Law Opinion Summaries

Kerry and Jeanie Cooper entered into a five-year lease agreement with James and Melisa Crouch to lease farmland for pasturing cattle and growing crops. The lease was set to expire in February 2022, but the Crouches terminated it early, citing the Coopers' failure to employ standard best management practices. The Coopers filed a lawsuit for breach of contract, claiming they were not given adequate notice or an opportunity to cure any alleged default as required by the lease.The District Court of Fremont County found that the Crouches breached the lease by failing to provide the required notice and opportunity to cure. The court awarded the Coopers $153,772.05 in damages, which included costs for feed, supplements, trucking, and replacement pasture. The court also reduced the damages by $24,650.35 for the Coopers' failure to mitigate damages by selling leftover hay.The Supreme Court of Wyoming reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's findings. The court held that the Crouches did not provide the Coopers with a meaningful opportunity to cure the alleged default, as the termination letter did not specify how to remedy the issues. The court also rejected the Crouches' first-to-breach defense, stating that they could not rely on the Coopers' alleged breach to excuse their own failure to provide proper notice.However, the Supreme Court found that the district court had erroneously included the costs of the pasture leases twice in its damages calculation. The court remanded the case with instructions to reduce the damages award by $2,660.60, affirming the decision in all other respects. View "Crouch v. Cooper" on Justia Law

William and Mary Fulton purchased a 32-acre property in Jericho, Vermont, in August 2021. The property was enrolled in the Agricultural and Managed Forest Land Use Value Appraisal Program (Current Use program) under a forest management plan that generally prohibited tree cutting. Before finalizing the purchase, the Fultons contacted the Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation (FPR) and the Department of Taxes, Division of Property Valuation and Review (PVR) to inquire about converting the property to agricultural use. They were informed that any tree cutting in violation of the plan would lead to disenrollment from the program and tax penalties. Despite this, the Fultons cut trees on the property shortly after purchasing it.The Fultons did not file the required application to continue the property's enrollment in the Current Use program or submit a notice of withdrawal. In September 2021, the county forester received a complaint about the tree cutting and confirmed the violation. FPR issued an adverse-inspection report in December 2021, leading to the property's removal from the Current Use program and tax penalties. The Fultons appealed to the Superior Court, Chittenden Unit, Civil Division, which granted summary judgment in favor of FPR, concluding that the property was still enrolled in the program at the time of the tree cutting and that the Fultons' actions constituted "development" under the program's rules.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that the property was not automatically disenrolled from the Current Use program when the Fultons failed to submit the required application and fee. Instead, disenrollment occurs only upon the Director of PVR's action. The Court also held that the Fultons' tree cutting did not fall under the statutory exemption for "development" because it was not related to the construction or alteration of a structure for farming, logging, forestry, or conservation purposes. Therefore, the Fultons' tree cutting violated the forest management plan, justifying the property's removal from the Current Use program. View "Fulton v. Department of Forests, Parks, and Recreation" on Justia Law

JES Farms Partnership sold crops through Indigo Ag's digital platform. In 2021, JES initiated arbitration against Indigo, alleging breach of a marketplace seller agreement and trade rule violations. Indigo counterclaimed, alleging JES breached the agreement and its addenda. JES then sought a federal court's declaratory judgment that Indigo’s counterclaims were not arbitrable and that some addenda were invalid. Indigo moved to compel arbitration based on the agreement's arbitration clause.The United States District Court for the District of South Dakota partially denied Indigo's motion. The court agreed that Indigo’s counterclaims were arbitrable but ruled that the enforceability of the addenda was not arbitrable under the marketplace seller agreement. The court found the arbitration clause "narrow" and concluded that disputes about the addenda's enforceability did not relate to crop transactions. Indigo appealed this decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court determined that the arbitration clause in the marketplace seller agreement was broad, covering "any dispute" related to the agreement or transactions under it. The court found that the enforceability of the addenda was indeed a dispute "relating to crop transactions" and thus fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Consequently, the Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and directed it to grant Indigo’s motion to compel arbitration and address the case's status pending arbitration. View "JES Farms Partnership v. Indigo Ag Inc." on Justia Law

Rodney and Tonda Ross, along with Laura Field, sued Norman Terry Nelson and his corporate entities for trespass and nuisance. Nelson operated an industrial hog-farming operation and installed pipelines beneath a public road to transport treated pig waste to his farmland, which caused odors and fly infestations affecting the Rosses' property. The plaintiffs claimed Nelson did not have permission to install the pipelines and that the resulting conditions constituted a nuisance.The Phillips District Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the trespass claim, ruling that Nelson needed the landowners' permission to install the pipelines, which he did not have. The court also denied Nelson's motion for summary judgment on the nuisance claim, concluding that Nelson was not entitled to the statutory presumption of "good agricultural practice" under Kansas' right-to-farm statutes because his actions violated state law by trespassing on the plaintiffs' land. The jury awarded damages to the plaintiffs for both trespass and nuisance, including punitive damages.The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's rulings. It held that Nelson's installation of the pipelines exceeded the scope of the public highway easement because it was for his private and exclusive use, thus constituting a trespass. The court also agreed that Nelson was not entitled to the right-to-farm statutory protections because his agricultural activities were not "undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and local laws," given the trespass.The Kansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decisions. It held that Nelson's use of the public highway easement for private pipelines was outside the easement's scope and constituted a trespass. The court also held that Nelson's agricultural activities did not conform to state law, disqualifying him from the statutory presumption of good agricultural practices and the right-to-farm protections. View "Ross v. Nelson" on Justia Law

Kevin Jucht and Nathan Schulz are neighboring farmers. Jucht sued Schulz, alleging that Schulz's chemical spray drifted onto Jucht's property, damaging his soybeans. Jucht reported the incident to the South Dakota Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources (DANR) and subsequently filed a lawsuit against Schulz for negligence, strict liability, trespass, and nuisance, seeking actual and punitive damages. Schulz moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Jucht failed to provide the statutory notice required under SDCL 38-21-46.The Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit, McCook County, granted Schulz's motion to dismiss. The court concluded that Jucht's failure to provide the notice required by SDCL 38-21-46 barred him from seeking recovery for the alleged damages. Jucht appealed the decision, arguing that the lack of notice should not bar his cause of action.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court held that while SDCL 38-21-46 requires a person claiming damages from pesticide use to notify the applicator, failure to provide such notice does not automatically bar the claimant from bringing their claim. Instead, a claimant is barred from seeking recovery under SDCL 38-21-47 only if they fail to allow the applicator to inspect the alleged damage. The court emphasized that the purpose of the notice is to enable timely inspection by the applicator. The Supreme Court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the nature and timing of the notice Schulz received and whether he was given the opportunity to inspect the damage. View "Jucht v. Schulz" on Justia Law

The case involves the Michigan Farm Bureau and other agricultural entities challenging new conditions imposed by the Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) in a 2020 general permit for Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs). The new conditions included stricter limits on phosphorus application, setback requirements, and a presumptive ban on waste application during certain months. The plaintiffs argued that these conditions exceeded EGLE’s statutory authority, were contrary to state and federal law, lacked factual justification, were arbitrary and capricious, unconstitutional, and invalid due to procedural failures under the Michigan Administrative Procedures Act (APA).Initially, the plaintiffs sought a contested-case hearing to challenge the permit but then filed for declaratory judgment in the Court of Claims. EGLE moved for summary disposition, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies. The Court of Claims agreed, dismissing the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision but held that the plaintiffs could seek a declaratory judgment under MCL 24.264, provided they first requested a declaratory ruling from EGLE, which they had not done.The Michigan Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the 2020 general permit and its discretionary conditions were not "rules" under the APA because EGLE lacked the statutory authority to issue rules related to NPDES permits for CAFOs. Consequently, the Court of Claims lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under MCL 24.264. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals but vacated its holding that the discretionary conditions were rules. The Court emphasized that EGLE must genuinely evaluate the necessity of discretionary conditions in individual cases and that these conditions do not have the force and effect of law. View "Michigan Farm Bureau v. Dept. Of Environment Great Lakes And Energy" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs-Appellants, a group of produce suppliers, sold produce to Lonestar Produce Express, LLC, a produce broker started by Leonidez Fernandez III and Eric Fernandez. Their father, Leonidez Fernandez Jr., frequently assisted them. By mid-2019, Lonestar owed approximately $221,000 to Plaintiffs-Appellants for unpaid produce invoices. Plaintiffs-Appellants sought relief under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA), which requires produce buyers to hold produce or proceeds from its sale in trust for unpaid suppliers until full payment is made. If the merchant's assets are insufficient, others who had a role in causing the breach of trust may be held secondarily liable.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held a bench trial to determine whether Leonidez Fernandez Jr. could be held individually liable under PACA. The court found that Leonidez Jr. was not a member, manager, or employee of Lonestar and did not have control over its financial operations. Consequently, the district court concluded that Leonidez Jr. did not owe a fiduciary duty under PACA and was not liable for Lonestar's debts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that individuals who are not members of an LLC can still be held secondarily liable under PACA if they have control over the trust assets. However, the court found that Leonidez Jr. did not have the requisite control over Lonestar's PACA trust assets. He was not authorized to direct payments, was not a signatory on the bank account, and did not contribute financially to Lonestar. Therefore, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision, concluding that Leonidez Jr. was not liable under PACA. View "A & A Concepts v. Fernandez" on Justia Law

In October 2014, while guiding a hunting party on their property, the Olsens' son observed a crop duster spraying herbicide, which allegedly damaged the Olsens' ponderosa pine trees. The Olsens claimed the herbicide caused significant damage and death to the trees. They filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, who argued that expert testimony was required to prove causation. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the Defendants, leading to the Olsens' appeal.The Circuit Court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Spink County, South Dakota, reviewed the case. The court found that without expert testimony, a jury would be left to speculate about the cause of the damage to the trees. The court noted that the fields of chemistry, botany, and agronomy were beyond the understanding of a typical layperson. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the Olsens' complaint in its entirety.The Supreme Court of South Dakota reviewed the appeal. The court affirmed the circuit court's decision regarding the need for expert testimony to establish causation for the damage to the trees. However, it reversed the summary judgment on the claims of trespass, statutory nuisance, and common law nuisance, noting that these claims do not require proof of damages to survive summary judgment. The court remanded these claims for further proceedings, allowing the Olsens to potentially recover nominal damages. The court affirmed the summary judgment on the claims of promissory estoppel and civil conspiracy due to the lack of evidence on causation for damages. View "Estate of Olsen v. Agtegra Cooperative" on Justia Law

Garland Joseph Nelson was convicted of mail fraud and being a felon in possession of a firearm, following a cattle fraud scheme he operated in Missouri. Nelson received cattle from Diemel’s Livestock, a company owned by brothers Justin and Nicholas Diemel, with the agreement to feed and sell the cattle after they had grown. However, Nelson failed to properly care for the cattle, resulting in many deaths. Instead of disclosing the loss, Nelson continued to accept more cattle and sell them under the pretense of the original agreement. Nelson also engaged in similar fraudulent conduct with farmer David Foster in Kansas and farm owner John Gingerich in Missouri.Nelson was sentenced to 360 months of imprisonment and 36 months of supervised release, and ordered to pay $260,925.07 in restitution by the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Nelson appealed the restitution order, arguing that the district court erred by not requiring the government to prove loss amounts by a preponderance of the evidence and that the restitution award to Diemel’s Livestock would result in double recovery.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution order. The court found that Nelson failed to object to the factual allegations regarding the loss amounts outlined in the Presentence Investigation Report (PSR), and thus the district court did not err in accepting the unobjected-to loss amounts. The court also disagreed with Nelson's argument that the restitution order amounted to an impermissible double recovery, as the settlement agreement expressly stated that Diemel’s Livestock would not recover damages under the settlement, and Nelson did not present evidence that Diemel’s Livestock received any other compensation in connection with the fraud alleged in this case. View "United States v. Nelson" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Blaine Simmons, a landowner, and Tom Loertscher and Josh Williams, cattle owners. Simmons owns land in Bonneville County, Idaho, which is part of a herd district established in 1919. The herd district prohibits livestock from running at large within its boundaries. Loertscher owns Hi Willow Ranch Corporation, which has a permit to graze cattle on a portion of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) land adjacent to Simmons' property. The BLM land is designated as open range, where livestock may graze and roam freely. Over time, cattle allegedly owned by Williams, grazing on the Loertscher Allotment, have strayed onto Simmons' property. Simmons repeatedly complained to Loertscher and Williams about this and set conditions for them to retrieve their cattle from his land.Simmons filed a small claims action against Loertscher and Williams alleging herd district violations and nuisance. The magistrate judge ruled in favor of Loertscher and Williams, stating that herd district laws do not apply to the Loertscher Allotment, which is on BLM land and designated as open range. The judge also stated that Loertscher and Williams have a common law right to enter Simmons’s Parcel at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to retrieve their cattle. Simmons appealed this decision to the district court, which affirmed the magistrate court's decision.The Supreme Court of the State of Idaho affirmed the district court's decision. The court concluded that the district court's interpretation of Idaho Code section 25-2402, which excludes open range from any herd district and reinstates Idaho’s “fence-out” rule with respect to cattle straying from open range, was consistent with the history of herd district law and the effect of the 1963 amendment. The court also affirmed the district court's decision regarding the conditions governing the retrieval of cattle from Simmons’s Parcel. The court found that Simmons did not preserve this issue for appeal before the district court, and the issue was waived before this Court. View "Simmons v. Loertscher" on Justia Law