Justia Agriculture Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Vagts family, who own and operate a dairy farm in West Union, Iowa, filed a nuisance suit against Northern Natural Gas Company (NNG). NNG operates a natural gas pipeline that runs under the Vagts' property and uses a cathodic protection system, which runs an electrical current through the pipeline to prevent corrosion. The Vagts alleged that stray voltage from the cathodic protection system distressed their dairy herd and caused them damages. The jury awarded the Vagts a total of $4.75 million in damages. NNG appealed, arguing that the district court erred in instructing the jury on nuisance without including negligence as an element of the claim and in denying NNG’s motion for remittitur.The district court held that negligence was not an element of the nuisance claim and instructed the jury accordingly. The jury found that the stray voltage from the cathodic protection system was definitely offensive, seriously annoying, and intolerable, that the stray voltage interfered with the Vagts’ normal use of land in the local community, and that this constituted a nuisance. The jury awarded the Vagts $3 million in economic damages, $1.25 million for personal inconvenience, annoyance, and discomfort, and $500,000 for the loss of use and enjoyment of land.On appeal, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that under the controlling statute and precedents, negligence is not an element of a nuisance claim. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disturb the jury's verdict on damages. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was supported by the record when viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. View "Vagts v. Northern Natural Gas Company" on Justia Law

A nuisance lawsuit was brought by neighbors against two poultry farms located on a single tract of rural land in Henderson County, southeast of Dallas. The neighbors claimed that the odors from the farms were a nuisance, causing them discomfort and annoyance. A jury found that the odors were a temporary nuisance and the trial court granted permanent injunctive relief that effectively shut down the farms. The farm owners and operators appealed, challenging the injunction on three grounds: whether the trial court abused its discretion in finding imminent harm; whether equitable relief was unavailable because damages provide an adequate remedy; and whether the scope of the injunction is overly broad.The Supreme Court of Texas upheld the trial court’s authority to grant an injunction, rejecting the first two challenges. However, the court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in crafting the scope of the injunction, which was broader than necessary to abate the nuisance. The court therefore reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to modify the scope of injunctive relief. View "HUYNH v. BLANCHARD" on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between Mary Roth and Gary Meyer, who were in a long-term relationship but never married. They cohabitated and ran a cattle operation together on a property that had a complex ownership history involving various members of Meyer's family. The couple's relationship ended, and Roth sued Meyer, alleging that he had converted some of her cattle and failed to repay loans she had given him.The District Court of Grant County, South Central Judicial District, found in favor of Roth. It ruled that Meyer had gained title to the disputed property through adverse possession and had transferred it to Roth in 2010. The court also found that Meyer had converted 13 of Roth's cattle and breached oral loan agreements with her, ordering him to pay her $52,500.On appeal, the Supreme Court of North Dakota reversed the lower court's decision. It found that the lower court had erred in its findings on adverse possession, the admissibility of certain evidence, the timing of the alleged conversion of cattle, the valuation of the converted cattle, and the enforceability of the loan contracts. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the lower court for further proceedings, instructing it to make new findings based on the existing record. View "Roth v. Meyer" on Justia Law

The case involves M&T Farms, a California general partnership between two farmers, who purchased crop insurance under the Whole-Farm Revenue Protection Pilot Policy (the “WFRP Policy”) from Producers Agriculture Insurance Company (“ProAg”), an insurer approved and reinsured by the Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (FCIC). M&T Farms and a third farmer sell farm commodities through a storefront, B&T Farms, which owns their business name and goodwill and is also a California general partnership. M&T Farms filed a claim seeking the full policy amount, which ProAg denied. The FCIC concluded that the WFRP Policy does not allow a partner who files taxes on a fractional share of farming activity conducted by a partnership to be eligible for WFRP coverage for the fractional share of that farming activity.The United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of the FCIC. M&T Farms challenged the FCIC’s decision that a partnership “holding the business name and good will of [others] (i.e., marketing and selling the commodities produced)” is engaged in “farming activity” under section 3(a)(4) of the WFRP Policy, and that therefore, any entity reporting a fractional share of the partnership’s activity on its tax returns is ineligible for WFRP Policy coverage.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The court held that the WFRP Policy contained an ambiguity regarding the definition of “farming activity.” The FCIC’s conclusion that a partnership selling its partners’ products and holding their goodwill and business name was engaged in “farming activity” under section 3(a)(4) of the policy had a reasonable basis and was also reasonable as a matter of policy. Because the FCIC’s interpretation of “farming activity” in the WFRP Policy was reasonable, it survived APA arbitrary and capricious review. The court also held that the term “farming activity” in the WFRP policy was genuinely ambiguous, the FCIC’s conclusion had a reasonable basis, and the FCIC’s conclusion was entitled to controlling weight. View "M & T FARMS V. FEDERAL CROP INSURANCE CORPORATION" on Justia Law