Justia Agriculture Law Opinion Summaries

The case involves J and L Farms, Inc. (J&L), a South Dakota company, and First Bank, a Florida banking corporation. J&L had an ongoing business relationship with Jackman Wagyu Beef, LLC (Jackman), a Florida-registered company, where Jackman would purchase cattle from J&L. In 2018, Jackman proposed a change in their payment terms, offering to pay for the cattle within 30 days of placing an order, instead of paying prior to the cattle being shipped. To secure each payment, Jackman proposed that J&L would be given a bank guarantee from First Bank. First Bank issued three separate guaranty letters to J&L to secure payment for the sale of cattle. However, Jackman failed to provide full payment for two orders, and First Bank refused to satisfy the outstanding balance.The circuit court of the Fifth Judicial Circuit in Brown County, South Dakota, entered a default judgment against Jackman after it failed to plead or defend against J&L’s complaint. First Bank filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that it did not have sufficient minimum contacts for a South Dakota court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it. The circuit court denied the motion.The Supreme Court of the State of South Dakota affirmed the circuit court's decision. The Supreme Court found that First Bank had sufficient minimum contacts with South Dakota to establish personal jurisdiction. The court reasoned that First Bank purposefully availed itself of the privileges of acting in South Dakota by issuing three guaranty letters to J&L, a South Dakota company, to facilitate the purchase of South Dakota cattle. The court also found that the cause of action against First Bank arose from its activities directed at South Dakota, and that the acts of First Bank had a substantial connection with South Dakota, making the exercise of jurisdiction over First Bank reasonable. View "J&l Farms" on Justia Law

An elderly woman, Janice Geerdes, and her long-time friend, Albert Gomez Cruz, had a partnership raising hogs on a piece of land. Initially, Janice deeded half of her interest in the land to Albert. Over a decade later, she deeded the rest of her interest in the land to Albert, receiving nothing in return. About six months later, Janice’s adult daughters were appointed her conservator and guardian. The conservator challenged the validity of the quitclaim deed based on undue influence and lack of capacity.The district court set aside the deed, finding that there was undue influence through a confidential relationship and that Janice lacked the necessary capacity to deed her interest in the land. The court of appeals affirmed the decision on the basis of lack of capacity.The Supreme Court of Iowa, however, disagreed with the lower courts. The Supreme Court found that the conservator did not establish by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence that there was undue influence or that Janice lacked capacity at the time of the gift. The court found that the lower courts gave too much weight to the perceived improvidence of the transaction and too little weight to the testimony of the third-party accountant who witnessed the transaction. Therefore, the Supreme Court vacated the decision of the court of appeals, reversed the district court judgment, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Conservatorship of Janice Geerdes v. Cruz" on Justia Law

Bader Farms, Inc. sued Monsanto Company and BASF Corporation, alleging that its peach orchards were damaged by dicamba drift between 2015 and 2019 due to the defendants' negligent design and failure to warn. The jury awarded $250 million in punitive damages against both Monsanto and BASF based on Monsanto’s acts in 2015-16, which the district court later reduced to $60 million. The defendants appealed the decision.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision except for punitive damages, holding BASF and Monsanto liable as co-conspirators in a civil conspiracy. The court remanded the case to separately assess punitive damages against Monsanto and BASF. However, before the new trial, Monsanto settled with Bader Farms. The district court did not conduct a new trial and instead ruled that BASF could not be liable for any punitive damages, dismissing all claims against BASF.Bader Farms appealed, arguing that the district court ignored the appellate court’s mandate and its holding that BASF could be assessed punitive damages for its acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. The appellate court reviewed the district court’s interpretation of its mandate de novo and found that the district court did not comply with the appellate mandate. The appellate court held that BASF is vicariously liable for Monsanto’s actions and remanded the case for a trier of fact to apportion the punitive damages award. The court reversed the judgment and remanded with instructions to hold a new trial on the single issue of punitive damages. View "Bader Farms, Inc. v. BASF Corporation" on Justia Law

The case revolves around a dispute between Good River Farms and Martin Marietta Materials and TXI Operations, who own land directly across from each other along the Colorado River. In 2015, a "120-year flood" event occurred near Austin, Texas, causing severe damage to Good River's pecan farm. Good River claimed that Martin Marietta's strip mining activities resulted in a large pit filled with groundwater that breached and released a deluge of impounded surface water onto their property. Following a jury trial, Good River was awarded $659,882.00 in damages, prevailing on claims for violations of Texas Water Code § 11.086 and for negligence. Martin Marietta appealed the decision.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The jury rejected Good River's nuisance claims but found in favor of Good River on the issues of water diversion and negligence. The trial court entered final judgment on that verdict, awarding Good River $659,882.00 in damages. Martin Marietta filed a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Rule 50(b), which the trial court denied.The case was then reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's conclusions that Martin Marietta violated Texas Water Code § 11.086 and committed common law negligence. The court noted that the jury verdict demands deference and that the unique factual scenario presented in this case supported the jury's conclusions. View "Good River Farms v. TXI Operations" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute within the Hora family over the operation of their family farm, Hora Farms, Inc. (HFI). Two brothers, Brian and Gregg Hora, brought a derivative action as minority shareholders against their father, Keith Hora, and brother, Kurt Hora, alleging breach of fiduciary duties based on their management of the farming operation. The brothers claimed that Keith and Kurt mismanaged the farm's operations, resulting in financial losses and unaccounted-for corn inventory. They also alleged that Keith used HFI's credit card for personal expenses.The case was initially heard in the Iowa District Court, where it was determined that neither Keith nor Kurt breached fiduciary duties owed to the corporation. The court found that the brothers' concerns were primarily related to poor recordkeeping and longstanding business practices, rather than intentional wrongdoing. The court also concluded that Keith's use of the corporate credit card for personal expenses was part of his compensation and was fair to HFI.The brothers appealed the decision to the Iowa Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision on two specific issues. The appellate court concluded that Keith engaged in self-dealing by using HFI's credit card for personal expenses and that he enabled Kurt to misappropriate corn from the farm. The court also found that Kurt breached his duty to HFI by misappropriating corn for his personal use.The case was then reviewed by the Supreme Court of Iowa. The court vacated the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. The Supreme Court found that Kurt, as an employee and not an officer or director of HFI, did not owe fiduciary duties to the corporation. The court also concluded that Keith did not violate any fiduciary duties owed to HFI in his oversight of Kurt. The court determined that the brothers failed to prove that Keith or Kurt violated fiduciary duties owed to HFI. View "Hora v. Hora" on Justia Law

This case involves a dispute between a grain producer, Robert Miller, and the Illinois Department of Agriculture over compensation from the Illinois Grain Insurance Fund. The fund is intended to compensate grain producers for losses incurred when a licensed grain dealer or a licensed warehouseman fails. Miller made a claim with the Department after his grain dealer, SGI Agri-Marketing, LLC, failed before making payment under a “price later contract.”A key issue in the case was the interpretation of the Grain Code's provision concerning the pricing of grain under a “price later contract.” According to the Code, if such a contract is not signed by all parties within 30 days of the last date of delivery of grain intended to be sold by the contract, then the grain is automatically priced on the next business day after those 30 days, at the market price of the grain at the close of that day.Miller argued that the grain was priced when he signed a purchase confirmation, which was within the 160-day window before the failure of the dealer, thus entitling him to compensation from the fund. The Department contended that the Grain Code automatically priced the grain as a matter of law on the next business day after 30 days from the last grain delivery, as the parties had not signed a contract agreeing to a pricing formula by then.The Supreme Court of the State of Illinois agreed with the Department’s interpretation. It held that the statute was unambiguous and provided that the grain would be priced as a matter of law on the next business day after 30 days from the last delivery. Therefore, because the grain was priced outside the 160-day protection window prescribed by the Grain Code, Miller was not eligible for compensation from the fund. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and reversed the appellate court's judgment. View "Miller v. Department of Agriculture" on Justia Law

The case in question pertains to a dispute over the enforceability of dragnet clauses within mortgages used to secure loans funding Frank Welte’s farming operations. The Vera T. Welte Testamentary Trust, of which Frank Welte is the sole beneficiary, pledged its property as security for these loans, which were provided by Roger Rand, another Iowa farmer. The Trust's primary asset is 160 acres of farmland that were leased to Frank. Upon Rand's death, his estate initiated a foreclosure action against the Trust's farmland. The Trust subsequently filed for chapter 12 bankruptcy, which led to a stay of the foreclosure action against the Trust.The Estate filed a proof of claim and a motion to dismiss the Trust’s bankruptcy petition, alleging that the Trust was not a business trust as required by chapter 12. The Trust objected to the Estate’s proof of claim. The Iowa state court ruled that the dragnet clauses in the mortgage documents secured the loans made to Frank in excess of the face amount of the promissory notes.The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Iowa, however, held that the dragnet clauses were not enforceable, thereby concluding that the Trust no longer owed a debt to the Estate. Following this, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Iowa gave preclusive effect to the judgment of the Iowa Court of Appeals concerning the enforceability of the clauses and the amounts owed thereunder.The Trust and the Estate both appealed the district court’s order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the appeal and cross-appeal due to lack of jurisdiction, as the district court's order was not final and required further proceedings in the bankruptcy court. View "The Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Vera T. Welte Testamentary Trust" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a dispute between insurance companies Zurich American Insurance Company and American Guarantee and Liability Insurance Company (collectively, “Zurich”), and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“Syngenta”), a company that manufactures and sells paraquat, a chemical compound used in herbicides that has been linked to the onset of Parkinson's disease. Zurich had issued primary commercial general liability policies and umbrella policies to Syngenta covering periods from January 1, 2017 to January 1, 2020.In January 2016, before the Zurich policies took effect, Syngenta received a letter from a law firm representing numerous victims of Parkinson’s disease who alleged they had been exposed to paraquat. The letter, while threatening future litigation, did not identify any individual claimants or specify any damages. The law firm did not file any lawsuits until after the inception of the Zurich policies.Zurich denied coverage for the lawsuits, arguing that the 2016 letter constituted a “claim for damages" that fell outside the policy period. Syngenta disagreed, arguing that the letter was too unclear and amorphous to constitute a claim for damages. The Superior Court of the State of Delaware sided with Syngenta, holding that the letter did not constitute a "claim for damages" under the Zurich policies.The Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed the lower court's decision. The Court held that a “claim for damages” is a demand or request for monetary relief by or on behalf of an identifiable claimant. The Court found that the letter did not constitute a claim for damages because it did not identify any claimants or demand any monetary relief. The Court also upheld the lower court's dismissal of Syngenta's bad-faith counterclaim against Zurich, finding that Zurich had reasonable grounds to deny coverage at the time of the denial. View "Zurich American Insurance Company v. Syngenta Crop Protection LLC" on Justia Law

In the case, Mojave Pistachios, LLC (Mojave) and other petitioners sought to challenge a replenishment fee on groundwater extractions imposed by the Indian Wells Valley Groundwater Authority (the Authority) in California. Mojave, which owns approximately 1,600 acres of land in the Mojave Desert, uses groundwater to irrigate its pistachio orchard. The Authority, created under the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), determined that all groundwater extractions in the water basin where Mojave’s orchard is located would be subject to a replenishment fee, which Mojave refused to pay. The Superior Court of Orange County sustained the Authority’s demurrer to certain causes of action in Mojave's third amended complaint, finding the claims were barred by California’s “pay first, litigate later” rule which requires a taxpayer to pay a tax before commencing a court action to challenge the tax’s collection.Mojave petitioned the Court of Appeal of the State of California Fourth Appellate District Division Three for a writ of mandate overruling the lower court's order. The appellate court concluded that the well-established “pay first” rule applies to lawsuits challenging fees imposed by a local groundwater sustainability agency under SGMA. As such, because any alleged economic harm to Mojave stems from the imposition of the replenishment fee, the “pay first” rule bars the challenged causes of action. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision and denied Mojave's petition for a writ of mandate. View "Mojave Pistachios, LLC v. Superior Court" on Justia Law

This case revolves around a long-standing dispute between two Nebraska families, the Zeilers and the Reifschneiders, over rights to divert water from their neighboring farmland. The dispute lead to a consent judgment in 1988, where Zeiler's father was ordered to remove a dike and level the area to a uniform elevation to allow for the drainage of surface waters from the Zeiler property to the Reifschneider property. Years later, Michael Zeiler filed a contempt action against Kenneth E. Reifschneider, alleging that Reifschneider had violated the consent judgment by raising the elevation level along the property boundary line, causing water to pool on Zeiler's farmland. The district court found Reifschneider in contempt, concluding he had willfully violated the consent judgment.However, the Nebraska Supreme Court vacated the district court's decision and dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court concluded that Zeiler lacked standing to pursue the contempt action because the consent judgment did not impose any obligations on Reifschneider. The judgment was a compromise conclusion to the earlier litigation between Reifschneider and Zeiler's father, where the defendant provided consideration in exchange for the plaintiff's dismissal of suit. The court clarified that its decision determined only that Zeiler lacked standing to pursue a contempt action, and made no evaluation of whether Zeiler would have standing or could obtain relief against Reifschneider via a different legal theory. View "Zeiler v. Reifschneider" on Justia Law