Justia Agriculture Law Opinion Summaries

Farmers that irrigate their land using water from the San Luis Unit of the Central Valley Project claimed that the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq., compelled the Bureau to provide their irrigation districts with more water than it was currently providing. Farmers argued that several federal statutes required the Bureau to provide irrigators with sufficient irrigation water to satisfy Farmers' needs before delivering water to any other party for any other purpose. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Bureau on several grounds. Pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Norton v. Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance (SUWA), the court held that the Bureau was not legally required to take a discrete action to deliver Farmers' preferred amount of San Luis Unit water for irrigation before it provided water for others. The Bureau retained the discretion to allocate San Luis water among various parties to satisfy its various obligations. There was no final agency action, nor was there any action that the Bureau had unlawfully withheld. Farmers' claims amounted to a broad programmatic attack on the way the Bureau generally operated the Central Valley Project and therefore Farmers have not established subject matter jurisdiction under the APA. View "San Luis Unit Food Producers, et al v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Appellants, almond producers, claimed that the Secretary of Agriculture, seeking to prevent the spread of salmonella, exceeded his authority in requiring California almonds sold domestically to be treated with heat or chemicals. The district court granted summary judgment for the Secretary. The court affirmed, finding that appellants have waived their claims by failing to raise them during the rulemaking process. View "Koretoff, et al v. Vilsack" on Justia Law

Consolidated Grain maintains a grain elevator in La Salle County, sold Rogowski’s crops, and gave him the proceeds by checks paid directly to him. The bank had lent money to Rogowski for which he signed a note and granted the bank a security interest in his crops and any proceeds of their sale. The bank notified Consolidated of its lien by two written notices, one covering crop years 2004 and 2005 and the other covering years 2005 and 2006. The notices listed as covered agricultural commodities “all grain on hand, all growing crops,” without listing their amount or location. The bank obtained a deficiency judgment against Rogowski in 2008, which remains unsatisfied, then sought payment from Consolidated. The trial court ruled in favor of the bank. The appellate court reversed and the supreme court affirmed. The Federal Food Security Act of 1985 provides how notices of security interests are to be worded and provides that there must be a statement of “each county or parish in which the farm products are produced or located,” The court rejected a “substantial compliance” argument and held that the notices were insufficient for failing to strictly comply with the Act. View "State Bank of Cherry v. CGB Enters., Inc." on Justia Law

William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc. (Kopke) brought an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) against The Alphas Company, Inc. (Alphas), alleging that Alphas had accepted delivery of four truckloads of fruit without paying the appropriate purchase price. On December 7, 2011, the Secretary of Agriculture issued an order awarding Kopke $50,025 plus interest. On January 6, 2012, Alphas sought to appeal the reparation order by filing a petition and notice in the U.S. district court. In connection with its appeal, Alphas submitted, on January 12, 2012, a bond backdated to January 6, 2012 in an attempt to bring it within the time frame of 7 U.S.C. 499g(c). The district court granted Kopke's motion to dismiss, concluding that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Alphas had failed to comply with the PACA's bond requirements. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that because Alphas did not file a proper bond within the prescribed period, the district court correctly ruled that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the reparation order. View "Alphas Co., Inc. v. William H. Kopke, Jr., Inc." on Justia Law

General Mills sued Five Star for breach of contract and breach of warranties after the meatballs General Mills purchased from Five Star contained beef that was recalled. The district court granted summary judgment to General Mills on the breach-of-contract claim and to Five Star on the breach-of-warranty claims. The parties cross-appealed. The court concluded that the press release that General Mills relied upon to recall the meatballs constituted hearsay. However, the press release set out findings from an investigation pursuant to authority granted by law and was therefore admissible. The court also concluded that sufficient admissible evidence supported the conclusion that the meat was procured in violation of regulations and that it was adulterated. Therefore, the district court properly granted summary judgment to General Mills on the breach-of-contract claim. The court further concluded that the district court properly analyzed the breach-of-contract and breach-of-warranties claims separately. The court dismissed General Mills' cross-appeal as moot and affirmed the award of attorneys fees to General Mills. View "General Mills Operations, LLC v. Five Star Custom Foods, Ltd." on Justia Law

This appeal involved a regulatory action by the Department of Labor, which suspended various regulations for temporary agricultural workers and reinstated other prior regulations. The court concluded that the district court correctly determined that the Department: (1) engaged in "rule making" when reinstating the prior regulations; and (2) failed to comply with the notice and comment procedures mandated by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 501 et seq. The court also concluded that the Department did not invoke the "good cause exception" provided by the APA to excuse its failure to comply with these notice and comment requirements. Accordingly, the court held that the district court did not err in invalidating the Department's action on the ground that it was arbitrary and capricious. View "United Farm Workers v. North Carolina Growers' Assoc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff owns three tracts, zoned agricultural, and challenged a 2009 amendment to the Winnebago County zoning ordinance that makes it easier to obtain permission to build a wind farm. She claimed that a wind farm on adjacent land would deprive the property “of the full extent of the kinetic energy of the wind and air as it enters the property, subjecting it to shadow flicker and reduction of light, severe noise, possible ice throw and blade throws, interference with radar, cell phone, GPS, television, and other wireless communications, increased likelihood of lightening damage and stray voltage. increased electromagnetic radiation, prevention of crop dusting, drying out her land, and killing raptors. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, characterizing the claim as simply that a wind farm adjacent to plaintiff’s property would be a nuisance. There is no merit to the claim that the amendment violates plaintiff’s constitutional rights. It is a “modest legislative encouragement of wind farming,” within the constitutional authority, state as well as federal, of a local government.View "Muscarello v. Winnebago Cnty. Bd." on Justia Law

The Ernest Hemingway Home and Museum appealed the district court's post-trial order denying it declaratory and injunctive relief. The Museum challenged the jurisdiction of the USDA to regulate the Museum as an animal exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), 7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq. The court concluded that the Museum's exhibition of the Hemingway cats (descendants of Hemingway's polydactyl cat, Dexter), which roamed freely on the Museum's grounds, substantially affected interstate commerce where the Museum invited and received thousands of admission paying visitors from beyond Florida, many of whom were drawn by the Museum's reputation for and purposeful marketing of the Hemingway cats and where the exhibition of the Hemingway cats was integral to the Museum's commercial purpose. Therefore, Congress had the power to regulate the Museum and the exhibition of the Hemingway cats via the AWA. View "907 Whitehead Street, Inc. v. Secretary of the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiff’s patent discloses an “easy clean dual wall deck” for a rotary cutter. Defendants manufacture rotary cutters that are pulled behind a tractor and used to mow wide swaths of ground. The accused rotary cutters can “rough cut” fields after a harvest or clear weeds and brush along roadsides. Plaintiff’s patent addresses a problem encountered by rotary cutters. Prior art cutters had structural components such as gearboxes and deck bracings mounted either on top of or underneath the cutter deck; the patent discloses a dual-wall deck that encloses the structural components in a torsionally-strong box, leaving smooth surfaces on the top and bottom of the deck for easing cleaning. The district court entered summary judgment of noninfringement. The Federal Circuit vacated, affirming the construction of “rotary cutter deck” and the determination that the terms “substantially planar” and “easily washed off” do not render the asserted claims invalid under 35 U.S.C. 112, but holding that the district court erroneously construed the term “into engagement with” to require direct contact. View "Deere & Co. v. Bush Hog, L.L.C." on Justia Law

The Rosenwinkels purchased 160 acres in Kendall County in 1991 and began cattle operations in 1992. Across the road was a farm house, at least 100 years old; in 1991, the tenant moved out and the house was vacant. In 1998, the Toftoys demolished the house. They built a new home, completed in 2004. In 2007, they filed a nuisance action complaining about flies. The Rosenwinkels sought protection under the Farm Nuisance Suit Act (740 ILCS 70/1). The circuit court entered judgment in favor of the Toftoys and ordered remedial measures, including removal of moist bedding and manure. The appellate court affirmed, except as to the remedy. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed, reasoning that plaintiffs did not acquire property rights until six years after the farm began operating, beyond the Act’s one-year limitation. By “coming to the nuisance,” plaintiffs were barred from suit. The Act is a “right-to-farm” law to limit nuisance actions and preserve use of farmland. It provides that no farm “shall be or become a private or public nuisance because of any changed conditions in the surrounding area” when the farm has been in existence for one year and was not a nuisance when it began operations. View "Toftoy et al., etc., v. Rosenwinkel et al." on Justia Law