Ag Law & Taxation Case Annotations :: Regulatory Law

In re Agric., No. NO. A-3283-06T3, 2009 N.J. Super. LEXIS 229 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Oct. 21, 2009)(validity of regulations that implement and enforce state Water Supply Management Act largely upheld; some regulatory amendments invalid because they are ultra vires).

Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA, et al., No. 07-60756, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 22774 (5th Cir. Oct. 16, 2009)(plaintiff class, residents and landowners of lands and property along the Mississippi Gulf coast have standing to assert public and private nuisance, trespass and negligence claims against defendants for emission of greenhouse gasses that allegedly contributed to "global warming" that allegedly caused a rise in sea levels and added to the ferocity of Hurricane Katrina which combined to destroy plaintiffs' private property and public property that was useful to them; claims were not non-justiciable political questions; but, plaintiffs' unjust enrichment, fraudulent misrepresentation and civil conspiracy claims dismissed for lack of standing; case remanded; case could have been dismissed for plaintiffs inability to establish proximate causation, but trial court had dismissed case without relying on that ground so appellate court did not address the issue; case remanded and it is anticipated that trial court will dismiss case due to plaintiffs inability to establish causal connection).

Organica Pastures Dairy Co., et al. v. State, No. H033022, 2009 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8237 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 15, 2009)(plaintiff, producer of raw milk sold to consumers challenged constitutionality of state law requiring raw milk sold to consumers to contain no more than 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter of milk; trial court denied plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction that would stay enforcement of provision; plaintiff's request for dismissal of appeal granted).

In re "Agent Orange" Product Liability Litigation, No. MDL 381, CV 08-2266 (JBW), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94637 (E.D. N.Y. Oct. 10, 2009)(defendants, manufacturers of "Agent Orange," not liable for alleged injuries and other damages associated with leaking of barrels containing "Agent Orange" due to government contractor defense; "Agent Orange" manufactured pursuant to government contract, delivered to government at specified location after government inspection and stored by government after delivery).

The Louisville Kennel Club, Inc., et al. v. Louisville/Jefferson County Metro Government, No. 3:07-CV-230-S, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92328 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 2, 2009)(case involves challenge to Louisville's animal-control ordinance; portion of law allowing city to keep dog that has been seized because of inhumane treatment, even if owner is ultimately found to be innocent of the charge, is unconstitutional; likewise, provision allowing city to take away dog license for any state or federal crime (even if unrelated to animal) is unconstitutional).

Acceptance Insurance Companies, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5015, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21549 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 1, 2009)(plaintiff's allegation that when USDA's Risk Management Agency declined to approve proposed sale of certain crop insurance assets to Rain and Hail LLC it rendered the assets valueless resulting in a categorical taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment dismissed; plaintiff did not have a recognizable property interest for Fifth Amendment purposes; district court decision affirmed).

Stockton East Water District, et al. v. San Joaquin County, et al., No. 2007-5142, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 21466 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2009), aff'g in part and rev'g in part, 75 Fed. Cl. 321 (2007)(federal government must compensate two regional water authorities for diversion of water for alleged environmental preservation purposes because such diversion breached existing water contracts between Bureau of Reclamation and water districts; contracts only allow government to deliver less water than contractually required only when circumstances are beyond control of federal government and Act of Congress (1992 Central Valley Project Improvement Act) is within control of the federal government; court did not rule on whether government must compensate water contractors for underdeliveries resulting from attempts to protect endangered species).

Wright v. General Mills, Inc., No. 08cv1532, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90576 (S.D. Calif. Sept. 30, 2009)(plaintiff sued alleging that defendant engaged in false and misleading labeling and advertising in violation of state law with respect to sales of "Nature Valley" crunchy granola as "100% natural" even though product contained high fructose corn syrup; plaintiff's state law claim not barred by "field preemption" of FDA; plaintiff's claims not impliedly preempted by doctrine of conflict preemption because FDA has deferred taking regulatory action with respect to the term "natural"; application of primary jurisdiction doctrine inappropriate; but, plaintiff has not pleaded fraud with the required particularity under Rule 9(b); plaintiff's complaint dismissed without prejudice).

Snyder v. Phelps, et al., No. 08-1026 (4th Cir. Sept. 24, 2009)(defendant's signs declaring "Thank God for dead soldiers" and "Fag troops" displayed at funeral of Marine killed in Iraq are protected speech under the First Amendment - statements were rhetorical hyperbole that could not reasonably be interpreted as factual; court unanimously vacated trial court's $5 million verdict against defendant).

Affinity Production Co., LLC v. CSS Farms, Inc., No. 8:08CV449, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86272 (D. Neb. Sept. 21, 2009)(plaintiff, potato chip maker, failed to timely pay for potatoes delivered by defendant under supply contract which plaintiff accepted, and defendant terminated the contract; on motions for summary judgment, plaintiff failed to produce specific facts to demonstrate any genuine issue of material fact concerning plaintiff's failure to pay for potatoes delivered under the contract and defendant entitled to judgment as a matter of law; genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether potato shipments are covered under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act).

Center for Food Safety, et al. v. Vilsack, et al., No. C 08-00484 JSW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86343 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009)(on cross motions for summary judgment, plaintiff showed that defendant's unconditional deregulation of Roundup-Ready sugar beets violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by failing to examine the likelihood and effects of gene transmission on conventional farmers and consumers of sugar beet seed or of gene transmission to the related crops of red table beets and Swiss chard; potential elimination of farmer's choice to grow non-genetically engineered crops, or consumer's choice to eat non-genetically engineered food has a significant effect on the "human environment"; defendant's reasons for concluding that the potential for gene transmission of the genetically engineered gene is not significant are not convincing and do not satisfy required NEPA standards; court need not determine whether defendant further violated NEPA by failing to sufficiently address whether deregulation would cause the proliferation of glyphosate-resistant weeds or whether APHIS had an obligation to address the cumulative effects of increased use of glyphosate; defendant must prepare an environmental impact statement before approving the petition to deregulate Roundup Ready sugar beets).

B&S Farms of Kasson, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 08-CV-5827, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84299 (D. Minn. Sept. 15, 2009)(defendant applied wrong legal standard concerning "active engagement" test so as to deny plaintiff farm program benefits; defense of laches generally inapplicable against government and would not have applied in any event; case remanded to defendant for application of the correct legal standard).

U.S. Senate Passage of S. 1023 - "Travel Promotion Act of 2009" (establishes "travel promotion fund fees" by amending the Immigration and Naturalization Act to initiate a minimum fee of $10 per travel authorization on foreigners that visit the U.S. when they apply for travel to the U.S. through the Electronic System for Travel Authorization (no cap on maximum fee specified); effect of Bill anticipated to be increase cost of travel to U.S., decrease in tourism, and negative impact on U.S. public diplomacy; Sen Grassley (IA) voted against, Sen. Harkin (IA) voted for).

Center for Biological Diversity, et al. v. United States Department of the Interior, et al., No. 07-16423, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 20380 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 2009)(defendant, Bureau of Land Management, violated National Environmental Policy Act by not considering the environmental consequences of its approval of a land exchange that would result in a mining company obtaining fee simple ownership of land on which mining activities would not be subject to the Mining Law Act of 1872).

City of Clinton v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, No. 4:09-CV-386-Y, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83664 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2009)(plaintiffs, contract poultry growers, failed to state a claim for promissory estoppel, fraud, and intentional infliction of emotional distress; non-TX plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to invoke TX law and have, therefore, failed to state a claim under the TX Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but TX plaintiffs did state such claim; all plaintiffs have stated a claim under the Packers and Stockyards Act for terminating growers who would not upgrade their chicken houses to include cool-cell technology despite the fact that the grower contracts did not require such upgrades; defendant's motion to dismiss granted in part and denied in part).

United States v. Park, No. 05-0213-N-EJL, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82861 (D. Idaho Sept. 11, 2009)(defendant's dog kenneling business located in federally-designated Wild and Scenic River corridor is a permissible use under easement permitting "livestock" businesses as an acceptable use; dogs considered livestock when kenneled for profit - use synonymous with pasturing horses for profit).

Lucent Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Gateway, Inc., et al., No. 2008-1485 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2009)(certain software features on defendant's Outlook, Money and Windows Mobile infringed on plaintiff's patent, but $358 million damage award not supported by evidence; case remanded to district court on damages issue).

Fischer Sand & Aggregate, Inc. v. Dakota County, No. A09-0295, 2009 Minn. App. LEXIS 170 (Minn. Ct. App. Sept. 8, 2009)(eight-year period for expiration of agricultural-preserve status under Minn. Stat. Sec. 473H.08, subd. 2 commences when the landowner delivers the form provided by the Commissioner of Agriculture to the relevant authority under the statute).

Moscheo v. Polk County, No. E2008-01969-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2009)(defendant's privilege tax on whitewater rafting preempted by federal Maritime Transportation Security Act; rafting activities occur on navigable waterway subject to jurisdiction of United States).

Dillworth, et al. v. Case Farms Processing, Inc., No. 5:08CV1694, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76947 (N.D. Ohio Aug. 27, 2009)(Fair Labor Standards Act case involving the issue of payment for donning and doffing and defendant's motion to dismiss).

Monsanto Co., et al. v. Tidball, et al., No. 4:07CV2079 CDP, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75925 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 26, 2009)(defendants' expert witness testimony in saved seed case excluded).

Sharp, et al. v. United States, No. 2008-5105 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2009)(remarried widows of U.S. Army retirees can collect full amount of death benefits from defendant because remarriage occurred after age 57; Veterans Benefits Act of 2003 allows for full Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments (which are automatically paid to surviving spouses of veterans who died on active duty or because of service-related disability) to surviving spouses who remarry after age 57 and states that DIC benefits won't decrease if surviving spouse receives other benefits; but, Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) program (which allows military personnel to have premiums deducted from pay in order to provide surviving spouses with death benefits) specifies that SBP payments are reduced by the amount a surviving spouse receives in DIC payments; court held that offset provision violates the Veterans Benefits Act).

Ophir, et al. v. City of Boston, No. 09-10467-WGY, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75823 (D. Mass. Aug. 14, 2009)(Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 preempted local rule that required all taxis to be hybrid vehicles).

Ramsey v. Lambert, No. 2008-CA-000862-MR, 2009 Ky. App. LEXIS 125 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2009)(defendant's use of ultrasound device to examine horses' hearts for plaintiff was not practicing veterinary medicine without a license and need not reimburse plaintiff for the cost of the scans - scans not utilized to diagnose or treat any of the horses; defendant entitled to $250,000 for breach of oral contract).

New Mexico Gamefowl Assoc., et al. v. State, No. 2009-NMCA-088, 2009 N.M. App. LEXIS 106 (N.M. Ct. App. May 5, 2009), cert. den., No. 31,764, Jul. 14, 2009)(2007 law banning cockfighting is constitutional; law prevents bird owners from staging fights, but doesn't prevent them from owning or breeding birds; cockfighting not a  Mexican culturally-protected use of fowl (under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo)).

Klump v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-2963-07T3, 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2044 (Super. Ct. N.J. Jul. 31, 2009)(defendant's resolutions and ordinances effectuated both an inverse condemnation and regulatory taking of plaintiff's property).

Merced v. Kasson, et al., No. 08-10358, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 17027 (5th Cir. Jul. 31, 2009)(Texas city ordinance prohibiting the keeping of four-legged animals within town borders violates the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act because the ordinance prevents the plaintiff, a Santeria Oba Oriate priest (combination of Catholicism and African Tribal Religion) from performing animal sacrifice ceremonies essential to plaintiff's religious practice without a compelling government interest to ban such practices).

Longleaf Energy Associates, LLC v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., et al., No. A09A0387, 2009 Ga. App. LEXIS 787 (Ga. Ct. App. Jul. 7, 2009)(because neither the Clean Air Act nor the Georgia Air Quality Act regulate carbon dioxide emissions, air quality permit issued to pulverized coal-fired electric power plant was not invalid for its failure to include limit on power plant's carbon dioxide gas emissions; trial court judgment which invalidated the issuance of the permit reversed; on remand, administrative judge must review permitting process).

Andrako, et al. v. United States Steel Corp., No. 07-1629, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52235 (W.D. Pa. Jun. 22, 2009)(plaintiff sought compensation for time spent donning and doffing protective gear as well as showering and walking to and from workstations after donning and before doffing; Sec. 203(o) of FLSA exempts compensation for employee time spent changing clothes if such exemption is contained in collective bargaining agreement; while lower courts divided on definition of "clothes"  and Supreme Court did not address the issue in IBP v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005), court reasoned that "clothes" includes all garments and accessories worn by a person at any one time; thus flame retardant jackets and pants, glasses, boots, snoods and hard hats are "clothes" under the FLSA). 

Balfour Land Company, L.P. v. United States, No. 7:08-cv-34 (HL), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52289 (M.D. Ga. Jun. 22, 2009)(case involves sale of farmland subject to multiple CRP contracts; no written document provided that buyer would assume existing CRP contracts, but seller informed FSA of sale and that buyer intended to assume CRP contracts and that FSA should direct all subsequent correspondence to buyer; FSA informed seller that he was required to refund all annual rental payments plus interest, all cost-share payments plus interest and liquidated damages because buyer did not become successor to CRP contracts within 60 days as required by regulation; NAD determined that (1) verbal agreement between buyer and seller for buyer's succession to CRP contracts should have been reduced to writing; (2) buyer did not obtain FSA approval to succeed to or modify the contracts; (3) while FSA allowed buyer to cancel CRP contract, cancellation did not constitute succeeding to remaining CRP contracts; (4) allowing buyer to cancel one CRP contract did not harm seller because buyer required liquidated damages; Director Review upheld and seller appealed; court granted summary judgment for government on seller's equitable estoppel, unclean hands, declaratory judgment, intentional interference with contractual relations, intentional breach of contract, negligence and plaintiff's claim for attorney fees).

Koretoff, et al. v. Vilsack, No. 08-1558 (ESH), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50688 (D. D.C. Jun. 17, 2009)(plaintiffs, almond growers and retailers, challenged USDA regulation requiring almond handlers to treat raw almonds in order to reduce risk of Salmonella contamination; USDA regulation upheld and plaintiffs required to exhaust administrative remedies).

Svancara v. Rain and Hail, LLC, No. 8:09CV144, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49097 (D. Neb. Jun. 11, 2009)(clear language of crop insurance policies provide for binding arbitration that is subject to judicial review; court allowed plaintiff to amend complaint to change breach of contract claim to a claim requesting review of final arbitration award in defendant's favor).

Allenberg Cotton Co. v. Staple Cotton Cooperative Assoc., No. 4:07-CV-123-SA-DAS, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47956 (N.D. Miss. Jun. 9, 2009)(state regulation concerning the standard of care required of warehousemen in the operation of federally licenssed warehouses is preempted by the United States Warehouse Act (USWA); defendant fulfilled its federal statutory duty with respect to information recorded on warehouse receipt; USWA does not impose duty on warehouseman to inspect or warrant the quality of the ag goods stored).

Woodway Texaco, LLC v. Standard Petroleum Co., No. 3:09-cv-257 (CFD), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46449 (D. Conn. Jun. 1, 2009)(court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over case and granted plaintiff's motion to remand case to state court; at issue was alleged violations of state Unfair Trade Practices Act and Uniform Commercial Code arising from defendant's refusal to pass along to plaintiff (gasoline retailer) the 5.1 cent per gallon tax credit applicable to gasoline blended with 10 percent alcohol; case did not involve any question concerning interpretation of federal tax statute).

In re Aurora Dairy Corp., No. 4:08MD01907 ERW, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50884 (E.D. Mo. Jun. 3, 2009)(milk sold as "Organic" alleged to not actually be organic because dairy allegedly failed to satisfy federal production requirements and plaintiff claimed damages related to paying higher price for "Organic" milk; allegations preempted because dairy in compliance with federal law). 

Jazayeri, et al. v. Mao, et al., No. B195083 (Cal. Ct. App. May 27, 2009)(chicken farm improperly denied right to present evidence that one of its poultry suppliers fraudulently inflated the number of chickens that were dead on arrival).

Pennsylvania v. Richmond Township, No. 360 M.D. 2006, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 236 (Pa. Commw. Ct. May 22, 2009)(court denied defendant's motion for judgment on the pleading concerning state attorney general's claim that defendant violated state law by adopting and enforcing a local ordinance that prohibited or limited normal agricultural operations; ordinance failed to provide any guidance as to how the defendant determined when activities associated with normal agricultural operations intensified to the level that transformed into an intensive agricultural activity; in addition, factual dispute remained over the term "commercial composting" which was undefined in the ordinance).

Rondigo, L.L.C. et al. v. Casco Township, No. 08-1575 (6th Cir. May 13, 2009)(plaintiff complained that defendant's zoning laws were unconstitutional as applied to their proposed composting facility; court held that there was no equal protection violation when law enforced against plaintiff and not against competing composting facility; other facility in existence before zoning law became effective and was non-conforming use; substantive due process claim also failed because no evidence existed that defendant's request for revisions to plaintiff's site plan were arbitrary and capricious; plaintiff did not have protected property interest in using their land for composting because approval of composting activity was matter within discretion of township's planning commission).

Winnemucca Farms, Inc. v. Eckersell, et al., No. 3:05-CV-385-RAM, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40904 (D. Nev. May 13, 2009)(evidence does not resolve whether plaintiff's officers knowingly falsified information in furtherance of a multiple entity crop insurance scheme based on the defendant's advice; defendant's motion for summary judgment denied).

Schulte v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, No. A-08-822 (Neb. Ct. App. May 5, 2009)(value of rural residential and agricultural property affirmed; owner failed to present sufficient evidence that valuations were grossly excessive or the result of systematic exercise of intentional will or failure of plain legal duty).

Smithfork Grazing Association v. Salazar, No. 08-8005 (10th Cir. May 5, 2009)(BLM did not violate Adminstrative Procedures Act by not providing livestock grazing permittees a hearing on the record before implementing a decision that modifies the terms and conditions of the permittees' grazing permits; Taylor Grazing Act does not direct Secretary of Interior to provide a hearing each time the BLM issues a decision modifying the terms and conditions of a grazing permit, but only when those decisions are appealed administratively and only in connection with appeals; grazing permits are not licenses; provisions contained in federal appropriation bills from 1979-1992 did nont permanently amend the TGA and, thus, did not apply at time BLM issued its Final Decision in 2005; BLM not required to bear burden of proof when appellant requests stay of final decision and cases cited by plaintiff inapplicable on the issue).

J.C. Watson Co. v. Secretary of Labor, No. 08-1230, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 8225 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 17, 2009)(defendant's regulation which does not include post-harvesting processing facilities within the definition of "agricultural operations" under 29 C.F.R. Sec. 1928.21(b) upheld as reasonable, and "agriculture employment" must be read as co-extensive with "agricultural operations"; thus, employment activities occurring at place where agricultural activities not occurring are not agricultural employment).

Palmyra Pacific Seafoods, L.L.C., et al. v. United States, No. 2008-58 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 9, 2009)(defendant’s designation of waters around Pacific Island as a wildlife refuge did not violate constitutional rights of commercial fishing companies; plaintiffs’ fishing licenses did not include the right to use submerged land).

Lovell Land, Inc. v. State Highway Administration, et al., No. 92-2008, 2009 Md. LEXIS 45 (Md. Ct. App. Apr. 9, 2009)(eminent domain case).

North Iredell Neighbors for Rural Life, et al. v. Iredell County, et al., No. COA08-1068, 2009 N.C. App. LEXIS 370 (N.C. Ct. App. Apr. 7, 2009)(production of biodiesel by a farmer on farm premises for agricultural purposes is not a bona fide farm use and, thus is not exempt from county zoning; such use is a non-farm independent commercial enterprise and, when added to existing large-scale industrial farming operation does not involve the production of or an activity incidental to the production of crops, fruits, vegetables, ornamental and flowering plants, dairy, livestock, poultry, and all other forms of agricultural products as defined by state law that have a domestic or foreign market).

United States v. Navajo Nation, No. 07-1410 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Apr. 6, 2009)(plaintiff did not breach any fiduciary duty in connection with alleged failure to promptly approve a royalty rate increase under a 1964 coal lease; such a duty is not imposed by the Indian Mineral Leasing Act of 1938).

Hettinga, et al. v. United States, No. 07-5403 (D.C. Cir. Apr. 3, 2009)(the mandatory administrative exhaustion requirement of 7 U.S.C. Sec. 608c(15)(A) does not apply to constitutional challenges to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act (AMAA); AMAA did not create a jurisdictional exhaustion requirement for challenges to the AMAA itself).

Averitt v. Caudle, et al., No. 11-07-00225-CV (Tex. Ct. App. Apr. 2, 2009)(ad valorem tax assessment of oil and gas interests received in royalties on property that taxpayer inherited upheld; taxpayer's appraiser failed to establish that assessment was inaccurate).

International Dairy Foods Association, et al. v. Boggs, No. 2:08-CV-628, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27074 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 2, 2009)(state regulation of labeling of dairy products prohibiting claims regarding the composition of milk with respect to hormones upheld; no First Amendment infringement of free speech; regulation reasonably related to state's interest of preventing consumer confusion; but, summary judgment denied to all parties on formatting issue concerning disclaimer; no dormant Commerce Clause violation; regulation not pre-empted by Organic Foods Produciton Act and not void for vagueness).

In re Island Park, LLC v. New York State Department of Transportation, No. 504175, 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2459 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 2, 2009)(defendant's decision to close private railroad crossing utilized for movement of farm equipment across tracks upheld; defendant followed public safetey standard in making determination (limited sight distance and steep grade) and defendant's action exempt from requirement of performing environmental review).

Costa Oro, LLC v. Evergreen International, Inc., et al., No. 08-cv-3714, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22939 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 2009)(PACA trust case; defendants' motion to dismiss denied).

Township Board v. Kenoma, LLC, No. SD29080, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 368 (Mo. Ct. App. Mar. 19, 2009)(summary judgment awarded to defendant hog operation affirmed on appeal; plaintiff sued to enjoin proposed hog feeding business on grounds that it would violate provisions contained in zoning handbook; plaintiff lacked authority to regulate defendant's hog operation under state law).

Hempstead County Hunting Club, Inc. v. Southwestern Electric Power Co., No. 08-2613, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 5089 (8th Cir. Mar. 12, 2009)(plaintiff's challenge to construction of coal company not valid because plant had already secured necessary permits).

Wetherell v. Douglas County, No. A140182, 2009 Ore. App. LEXIS 121 (Ore. Ct. App. Mar. 4, 2009)(land use case involving statutory construction of whether essential or accessory improvements and structures can be placed on land designated as "exclusive farm use").

Tioga Preservation Group, et al. v. Tioga County Planning Commission, No. 1749 C.D. 2008, 2009 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 77 (Pa. Comw. Ct. Mar. 3, 2009)(grant of land use application for construction of wind farm upheld; defendant could consider application because terms of option agreement conferred on permit applicant the necessary property interest required by state law; defendant did not err in granting applicant waiver from screening requirement of local ordinance because such denial would require construction of 200-foot high fence around wind turbines which would have frustrated their effect, obstructed wind flow and provided little or no additional benefit to the community).

Wood v. Lane County Assessor, No. TC-MD 080675C (Ore. Tax Ct. Feb. 26, 2009)(taxpayer's property was properly disqualified from farm use special assessment because owner is hobby farmer who farms sporadically and is not engaged in bona fide profit-seeking farming operation because he consumes much of what he grows).

BHGDN, LLC v. State, No. 08-4474(DSD/FLN), 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14364 (D. Minn. Feb. 24, 2009)(successor-in-interest to defunct ethanol plant not entitled to subsidy payments owed to predecessor; 2008 statutory change prohibiting state from making ethanol subsidy deficiency payments to an entity that does not produce ethanol on commercial scale upheld as constitutional; defendant's motion to dismiss granted).

Ysursa, et al. v. Pocatello Education Association, et al., No. 07-869 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Feb. 24, 2009)(Idaho's ban on political payroll deductions constitutional even though payroll deductions for union dues permissible).

Wahl v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., No. 08-1517, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 3530 (9th Cir. Feb. 23, 2009)(debt collector does not violate federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when it accurately states the amount owed, but breaks down the principal and interest in an arguably false manner).

National Meat Association, et al. v. Brown, et al., No. CV-F-08-1963 LJO DLB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12523 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 19, 2009)(preliminary injunction barring state of California from enforcing state law which became effective January 1, 2009, that bars selling of pork for human consumption derived from butchered hogs that are too sick to stand on their own; Federal Meat Inspection Act preempts state law; federal law requires veterinarian to be on site at time of slaughter and prohibits slaughter of "downer" livestock).

Adams, et al. v. United States, No. CIV S-04-0979-RRB-CMK, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11457 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2009)(case involves Bivens action against local Farm Service Agency County Supervisor who allegedly failed to perform duties mandated her position, knowingly made false representations and concealed improper actions; motion for default judgment against defendant Farm Services Agency for damages caused by defendant's failure to follow specific precautions required by federal law when plaintiff farmers became 180 days delinquent on their debt granted in part and denied in part).

Amalgamated Sugar Co., LLC v. Vilsack, No. 555 F.3d 816 (9th Cir. 2009), cert. den., No. 09-129, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6065 (U.S. Sup. Ct. Oct. 5, 2009)(Ag Adjustment Act provision contained in 7 U.S.C. Sec. 1359dd(b)(2)(E)-(F) unambiguous and USDA's regulatory interpretation not entitled to deference; under Act, "processor" is an entity who processes sugar and Act requires USDA to eliminate processor's sugar marketing allocation when processor permanently terminates operations; Pacific Northwest Sugar Company permanently terminated operations before sale of assets to plaintiff and USDA erred in approving transfer of allocation to another sugar company; subject sugar marketing allocation must be redistributed pro rata among all sugar processors).

Monsanto Co. v. Strickland, No. 4:05-3062-RBH, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16287 (D. S.C. Feb. 9, 2009)(defendant willfully and deliberately infringed plaintiff's seed patent by saving seed; plaintiff awarded $44,220.00 for patent infringement damages, $9,977.14 for prejudgment interest; $44,200.00 for attorneys' fees, $19,555.18 for costs, and $44,220.00 for enhanced damages).

Chrisman v. Washington County Assessor, No. TC-MD 081123B, 2009 Ore. Tax LEXIS 23 (Ore. Tax Ct. Feb. 5, 2009)(10-acre parcel qualified for tax assessment as agricultural property; farming activities has remained unchanged and clerical error caused plaintiff to miss deadline to challenge reclassification).

Lockwood v. Conagra Foods, Inc., No. C08-04151 CRB, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10064 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2009)(defendant's motion to dismiss denied; plaintiff class alleged that defendant falsely labeled defendant's "Healthy Choice" pasta sauce as being all natural when it actually contains high fructose corn syrup; plaintiffs' claims not preempted by Nutrition Labeling and Education Act or Federal Food, Drug Cosmetic Act (FDCA); no implied preemption).

Schoenbaum v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours and Company, et al., No. 4:05CV01108, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7208 (E.D. Mo. Feb. 2, 2009)(plaintiff farmers must disclose Schedule F tax filings to defendant seed companies so that seed companies can determine amount of seed purchases; public disclosure of tax returns relevant to subject matter of case and information contained in returns not otherwise readily available; if additional tax return information necessary, defendant may file later request for those items).

Abingdon Livestock Exchange, Inc. v. Smith, et al., No. 1:06CV00096, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5290 (W.D. Va. Jan. 27, 2009)(defendant held to be actual purchaser of livestock and is liable for the purchase price as a "dealer" under the Packers and Stockyards Act).

White Eagle Cooperative Association, et al. v. Conner, No. 07-3545, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 379 (7th Cir. Jan. 12, 2009)(plaintiff consisted of milk producers who opposed USDA's regulatory changes to Mideast Milk Marketing Order involving "diversion limits"; plaintiff lacked standing to challenge regulatory changes because diversion limits only impacted conduct of handlers and plaintiff sued in capacity of producer).

Kafka, et al. v. Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, et al., No. 05-146, 2008 Mont. LEXIS 697 (Mont. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2008); Buhmann, et al. v. Montana, et al., No. 05-473, 2008 Mont. LEXIS 696 (Mont. Sup. Ct. Dec. 31, 2008)(court affirms trial court decision denying plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment takings claim involving enactment and enforcement of Initiative 143; plaintiffs own and operate alternative livestock game farms at which persons pay large sums of money to shoot captive animals within the confines of a game farm; Initiative 143 barred the fee-based shooting of game animals or alternative livestock; no taking under Penn Central analysis because Initiative did not eliminate all uses of alternative livestock as plaintiffs could still harvest animals for meat or antlers, or sell them in out-of-state markets where fee shooting still legal).

United States v. 8,800 Pounds, More or Less of Powdered White Egg Product, et al., No. 07-3671, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26098 (8th Cir. Dec. 24, 2008)(defendant’s importation of egg whites from Peru without first obtaining a pasteurization certificate from the Peruvian government and without obtaining authorization from the Food Safety Inspection Service violated the Egg Products Inspection Act, which could result in the condemnation and destruction of the egg whites; trial court’s granting of summary judgment upheld).

Cherry Hill Vineyards, LLC, et al. v. Lilly, No. 07-5128, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 26086 (6th Cir. Dec. 24, 2008)(Kentucky law barring out-of-state wineries from shipping their wine directly to customers held unconstitutional; opinion follows U.S. Supreme Court Granholm opinion).

Aloisi, et al. v. United States, No. 95-650L (Fed. Cl. Dec. 19, 2008)(plaintiffs (Oregon miners) cannot prevail on their $22.5 million takings claim against the U.S. Forest Service because the government never ordered them to stop mining; government allegedly waited more than two years to tell the plaintiffs that their operation wouldn’t harm the northern spotted owl).

Keene v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, Etc., et al., No. 5D07-3058, 2008 Fla. App. LEXIS 19217 (Fla. Ct. App. Dec. 19, 2008)(court upholds defendant’s decision granting a special use permit for the operation of a facility to provide horse riding lessons and a twice annual competitive horseback endurance trail ride; location, scale and intensity of activities compatible with character and development of the area and surrounding properties).

Tyson v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 5:07-CV-140- BO(3), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99202 (E.D. N.C. Dec. 9, 2008)(plaintiff's tobacco crop damaged by rain and produced only 65% of estimated crop output production for the crop year, but plaintiff actually received 102% of expected income from tobacco crop when factoring in insurance proceeds received for damaged crop; plaintiff subsequently applied to FSA for crop damage payments (CDPs)and received another $80,000; summary judgment for government upheld where plaintiff had extensive knowledge in FSA farm program eligibility rules and should have known that $80,000 was erroneously paid).

Agena v. Lancaster County Board of Equalization, 276 Neb. 851 (2008)(amendment to agricultural land valuation statute upheld as constitutional; properties at issue not primarily used for agricultural purposes and not entitled to preferential valuation).

Save the Valley, Inc., et al. v. Ferguson, et al., No. 39A01-0802-CV- 75, 2008 Ind. App. LEXIS 2546 (Ind. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2008)(trial court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over a private claim for declaratory and injunctive relief arising from activity regulated by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM); case involves landowners near a proposed confined feeding operation for which IDEM had issued permit).

Buffalo Park Development Company v. Mountain Mutual Reservoir Company, No. 06SA373 (Co. Sup. Ct. Nov. 24, 2008)(permits for three of five proposed subdivisions canceled due to plaintiff's failure to provide plan concerning how water that subdivisions would use would be replenished).

In re Hedman, et al., No. 1393 TP 08-00986, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8738 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Nov. 21, 2008)(member of Town Board allegedly concealed his relationship with wind energy company and disregarded conflict of interest when he voted to approve proposed wind energy facility which included a wind turbine on his property; suit seeks removal of member’s removal from Board, but removal not granted due to (based on the record) lack of evidence of self- dealing, corrupt activities, moral turpitude, or intentional wrongdoing).

Artesia Dairy v. Agricultural Labor Relations Board, No. F054590 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 20, 2008)(defendant’s decision excluding certain persons employed by plaintiff from voting on United Farm Workers of America’s (UFW) petition to represent plaintiff’s agricultural employees reversed in part and affirmed in part where (1) nephew of plaintiff’s owners did not fall under the regulation excluding the owner’s children from voter eligibility; (2) based on the evidence presented, defendant correctly concluded that the individual who maintained the lawn area around the dairy was not an agricultural employee; (3) it was appropriate for defendant to apply a substantiality test in determining whether an individual who engaged in childcare and cleaning was an agricultural employee; and (4) substantial evidence supported defendant’s conclusion that the two individuals with supervisory duties were supervisors and thus ineligible to vote).

Residents Opposed to Kittitas Turbines v. State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, et al., No. 81332-9, 2008 Wash. LEXIS 1051 (Nov. 20, 2008)(court has jurisdiction to review petition certified from superior court on issue of whether State can permit construction and operation of wind turbines for energy production in the state without authorization from county in which the turbines will be placed; held that governor properly exercised authority under Energy Facilities Site Locations Act to approve the site certification for the wind energy project at issue).

Association of Irritated Residents v. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 168 Cal. App. 4th 535 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)(court reversed denial of writ of mandamus and defendant ordered to complete assessment concerning public health impacts of state rule requiring large confined animal facilities to choose from a variety of mitigation measures with the goal of reducing VOC emissions, where: (1) rule was adopted without conducting an adequate assessment of its impact on public health, as required by state law; (2) the state law requirement was intended to address the district’s failure to meet federal and state ambient air quality standards for ozone and does not regulate ammonia emissions produced by large confined animal facilities; and (3) the trial court’s findings were not arbitrary and capricious).

Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., No. 07-1239 (U.S. Nov. 12, 2008)(U.S. Navy's use of "mid-fequency active" (MFA) sonar during integrated training exercises in waters off southern California permitted; Navy's need to conduct realistic training with active sonar to respond to enemy submarine threats plainly outweighs interest of plaintiffs in protecting marine mammals).

Menard v. Federal Aviation Administration, No. 07-60592 (5th Cir. Nov. 10, 2008)(neighbors of couple who operate a small grass airstrip can operate their own airstrip so long as both airports follow the defendant's special traffic guidelines; defendant did not act arbitrarily and capriciously in adopting guidelines).

Derickson v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. 07-4158 (6th Cir. Nov. 10, 2008)(review denied of defendant's finding that plaintiffs violated the Horse Protection Act by transporting and entering in a horse show a "sore" horse; defendant had substantial evidence to support findings that (1) plaintiffs liable for transporting a horse; (2) one plaintiff liable for entering the horse in a horse show; and (3) defendant's Horse Protection Operating Plan did not limit its ability to impose legal sanctions on plaintiffs).

In re Sterten, No. 07-2237 (3rd Cir. Nov. 4, 2008)(debtor lacks standing to challenge $57 of finance charges not disclosed by lender at loan closing; lender's non-disclosure within tolerance range of Truth-In-Lending Act).

Hall, et al. v. United States, No. 07-773C (Fed. Cl. Oct. 31, 2008) (takings claim of property owner whose cabins were mistakenly enrolled in Bureau of Land Management's Adopt-A-Cabin program dismissed; private citizens took the plaintiffs' equipment not the federal government and plaintiffs failed to establish a property interest in the cabin or other structures on the land since at least 1997 due to non-compliance with BLM regulations).

Gray, et al. v. Madera County, No. F053661, 2008 Cal. App. LEXIS 1684 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 24, 2008)(defendant's issuance of conditional use permit mining permit, approval of rezoning, certification of environmental impact report and approval of cancellation of Williamson Act contract for part of private ranch to be used as hard rock quarry improper; defendant failed to analyze adequacy of mitigation measures to address impacts on water, adequacy of mitigation measures with respect to traffic, cumulative impact on noise levels; and cumulative impacts in general).

Jelovsek v. Bredesen, et al., No. 07-5443/5524 (6th Cir. Oct. 24, 2008)(Tennessee laws governing the wine industry are an unconstitutional violation of the dormant commerce clause and are affirmed in part, and vacated in part where; portion of laws banning the direct shipment of alcoholic beverages to consumers, including wine, upheld; but Tennessee's Grape and Wine Law is discriminatory on its face; case remanded to fashion an adequate remedy and to allow in-state wineries an opportunity to intervene).

Egbert v. Ohio Department of Agriculture, No. 17-08-15, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 4463 (Ohio Ct. App. Oct. 14, 2008)(court affirms state Department of Agriculture's order suspending plaintiff's livestock dealers license; plaintiff failed to maintain proper records for infected hogs, made false and misleading statements regarding the health of hogs and failed to disclose the health and physical condition of the hogs).

Monks, et al. v. Rancho Palos Verdes, 167 Cal. App. 4th 263 (2008)(defendant's resolution toughening criteria for obtaining exclusion from moratorium on construction of new homes constituted permanent taking of all economically beneficial use and violated state constitutional takings provision; defendant failed to meet burden of justifying moratorium).

White, et al. v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, et al., No. 2-07-CV-522 (TJW), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74793 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2008)(defendant (poultry producer's) motion to dismiss plaintiff's claim under Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA) for price manipulation and unfair dealing denied because plaintiff need not show adverse impact on competition to prevail under PSA; defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiff's state law claim that defendant violated Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA) denied because plaintiff is a "consumer" under DTPA via relationship to overall transaction with defendant (as opposed to simply looking at the contractual relationship between the parties); plaintiff's fraud claim likewise not dismissed).

United States v. 4.85 Acres of Land, et al., No. 07-35310 (9th Cir. Sept. 29, 2008)(during trial involving condemnation action, defendant sought to introduce evidence of three sales at nearby subdivisions which occurred after the taking at issue; trial court refused to allow the evidence and appellate court reversed - trial court erred in making per se evidentiary ruling excluding all post-taking sales).

Sayers v. Washington County, No. 4:08-CV-790 CAS, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74134 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 26, 2008)(plaintiffs' claim that defendant deprived them of their constitutional rights by failing to maintain county road dismissed to extent it involves violation of equal protection clause of 14th Amendment or due process clause; state law claims for declaratory judgment and nuisance remanded to state court).

Lazy Y Ranch Ltd. v. Behrens, et al., No. 07-35315, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20335 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2008)(plaintiff's attempt to lease grazing lands from State of Idaho rejected even though plaintiff highest bidder at auction because plaintiff had ties to conservationists and was a Washington corporation attempting to enter the Idaho grazing market; plaintiff's equal protection rights violated and defendant otherwise violated clearly established law).

Commonwealth v. East Brunswick Township Board of Supervisors, No. 476 M.D. 2007, 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 456 (Comw. Ct. Penn. Sept. 23, 2008)(case involves question of whether defendant has right to prohibit use of human sewage as fertilizer on agricultural land in light of state Nutrient Management Act which established uniform standards for the regulation of the application of sewage sludge and animal manure to agricultural land; because Attorney General filed for summary relief, no evidentiary record presented on which factual finding that “sewage sludge” is a “normal agricultural operation” and not “industrial waste disposal, as asserted by the defendant could be made; plaintiff’s request for summary relief denied).

State v. Federal Subsistence Board, et al., No. 07-35723, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 20102 (9th Cir. Sept. 23, 2008)(grant of "customary and traditional" use permit to harvest moose to tribal community that was more permissive than state's stricter hunting regulations upheld; "customary and traditional" use permit does not limit nonsubsistence use, but merely allows for subsistence use).

State v. Greenwood, No. WD 68846, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1283 (Mo. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2008)(plaintiff condemned 7.5 acres of defendant's farm adjacent to state highway; amount of compensation determined, deposited with trial court and defendant withdrew the award; seven years later, jury determined that award should be substantially reduced and court ordered that defendant refund the difference with interest; reduced award upheld).

Vanek, et al. v. State, No. S-12579, 2008 Alas. LEXIS 132 (Alaska Sup. Ct. Sept. 19, 2008)(regulations reducing commercial salmon season in Alaska did not deprive commercial salmon fishers of their property rights; plain language of Limited Entry Act supported conclusion that entry permit not property, but rather a mere privilege that does not require compensation when modified; in addition, state constitution does not grant salmon fishers an exclusive private property right in the state waters).

Department of Agriculture, et al. v. Appletree Marketing, LLC, No. 277743, 2008 Mich. App. LEXIS 1816 (Mich. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2008)(defendant deducted assessments from gross proceeds owed to apple orchards from which it purchased apples, but did not remit assessments to plaintiff and used the assessments to pay other expenses; plaintiffs’ conversion claim fails because state Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act provides exclusive remedy for violation of the Act).

Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership v. Johnson, No. 2007AP2492, 2008 Wisc. App. LEXIS 728 (Wisc. Ct. App. Sept. 16, 2008)(use of land outside easement (but consistent with language of easement) and construction of additional pipelines within easement do not constitute a taking that requires condemnation proceedings; easement enforceable and not against public policy).

A&J Produce Corp., et al. v. Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation, No. 07-3041-cv (L), 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19348 (2nd Cir. Sept. 10, 2008)(secured creditor’s lien on PACA trust assets does not constitute a transfer of the assets beyond the reach of PACA protected creditors).

Five Points Road Joint Venture v. Johanns, No. 07-3406, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19148 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2008)(Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) applies to USDA administrative appeals; NAD proceedings meet the definition of “adjudication,” provide an opportunity for a hearing and are on the record; thus, prevailing party may recover attorney fees and expenses if administrative officer determines that government’s position was not substantially justified).

Widtfeldt v. Schafer, No. 07-1284 (8th Cir. Sept. 4, 2008), 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 19124(plaintiff, as cash rent landlord, was ineligible for farm program payments under Market Loss Assistance program ; plaintiff did not incur risk of crop production).

Clifton v. Village of Blanchester, No. CA2007-09-040, 2008 Ohio App. LEXIS 3727 (Ohio Ct. App. Sept. 2, 2008)(case remanded on issue of whether rezoning of adjacent land effected a partial taking under the Penn Central analysis).

Creekstone Farms Premium Beef, L.L.C. v. Department of Agriculture, No. 07-5199, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 18535 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 29, 2008)(case involves lawsuit challenging the USDA's refusal to allow plaintiff to purchase and use kits to test for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in 100 percent of cattle it slaughters for shipment to Japan (who requires 100 percent testing); under the deference standard of Chevron, court upheld defendant’s regulations  under the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act that allowed defendant to regulate the use of biological products, including the test kits, and to restrict their distribution and sale such that plaintiff effectively blocked from conducting BSE testing; case remanded for ruling on whether defendant acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to allow plaintiff to test its cattle in violation of the Administrative Procedures Act).  

United States v. Fincher, No. 07-2514 (8th Cir. Aug. 13, 2008)(defendant's militia group not affiliated with state militia and, therefore, not subject to protections of Second Amendment; since machine guns not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Heller did not protect defendant's possession of machine guns; case remanded on issue of whether defendant qualified as pauper or should be required to pay costs of court-appointed counsel).

Commonwealth v. Gussler, et al. , No. 2008-CA-000482-WC, 2008 Ky. App. LEXIS 251 (Ky. Ct. App. Aug. 8, 2008)(defendant injured while cutting trees on neighbor’s property for neighbor’s logging business for which defendant received W-2 wage statement annually; defendant’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits upheld; court holds that defendant not engaged in agricultural employment and, as such, employment not exempt from workers’ compensation coverage; statutory definition of “agriculture” did not include logging, and timber not cut to make land suitable for farming).

Logan County Commission v. Vandemoer, No. 07-CA1011, 2008 Colo. App. LEXIS 1277 (Colo. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2008)(county Resolution prohibiting movement of agricultural irrigation sprinklers on or over county roads invalid; Resolution conflicts with state statute authorizing movement of implements of husbandry on public roads; mere fact that farmer moves irrigation sprinkler on county road does not, by itself, establish a public nuisance; plaintiff made no showing of present or imminent damage to road such that injunctive relief based on criminal statutory violation denied).

Baude, et al. v. Heath, No. 07-3323, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 17050  (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2008)(state regulation requiring residents to first make fact-to-face contact with wine merchant before placing phone or online orders upheld as constitutional because effect on interstate commerce negligible; but, regulation prohibiting vintners from acting as their own wholesaler struck down as unfair burden on out-of-state sellers even though facially neutral).

Porter v. Gentry County Commission, No. 08-6029-CV-SJ-FJG, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58800 (W.D. Mo. Aug. 4, 2008)(plaintiff’s Bivens action against defendant dismissed  because plaintiff failed to present sufficient facts to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery may reveal evidence of claims asserted in complaint  - that defendant acted with indifference to plaintiff’s opposition to wind farm within one mile of plaintiff’s residence; but, plaintiff may amend complaint to remove defendant from suit and add private party as defendant).

In re Petro- Canada Resources USA Inc., No. 2007-66 (Wyo. B.O.E. Jul. 31, 2008)(Wyoming State Board of Equalization rules that, for severance and ad valorem tax purposes, the statutory point of valuation should be used to determine the taxable value of coal bed methane and not the point where the coal is delivered to a third party for transportation).

New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals v. New Jersey Department of Agriculture, No. A-27, 2008 N.J. LEXIS 894 (N.J. Sup. Ct. Jul. 30, 2008)(broad facial challenge to state regulations of N.J. Department of Agriculture setting standards governing the raising, keeping and marketing of domestic livestock rejected, with sole exception of regulation involving the practice of tail docking).

Moldon v. Clark County, No. 47549 (Nev. Sup. Ct. Jul. 24, 2008)(interest earned on condemnation funds deposited with court in eminent domain action that were placed in local government’s general fund constituted taking under Fifth Amendment; condemnation deposits are private property to the extent private party entitled to condemnation deposit and private party similarly entitled to interest earned on deposited amount).

In re Matter of West Beekmantown Neighborhood Association, Inc., et al. v. Zoning Board, No. 503704, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6261 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jul. 24, 2008)(grant of conditional use permit for construction of wind farm upheld; zoning board’s determination that wind farm constitutes public utility for zoning law purposes entitled to deference and not shown to be unreasonable or not rationally based; zoning board considered various environmental impact studies submitted by wind farm and held public hearings).

Wheeler v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., No. 07-40651, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 15391 (5th Cir. Jul. 21, 2008)(plaintiff need not prove adverse effect on competition to prevail in lawsuit alleging violation of Packers and Stockyards Act Sections 202(a)-(b) (7 U.S.C. §§192(a)-(b)); statutory language is plain, clear and unambiguous and other court opinions finding a requirement that a plaintiff prove adverse effect on competition reached well beyond the PSA’s clear and unambiguous text).

  In re Humane Society, No. 504235, 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6156 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jul. 17, 2008)(case involves Freedom of Information Act request for records concerning production of foie gras at specified farms; records at issue consist of handwritten notes and memoranda authored by a veterinarian in connection with veterinarian’s role in investigation of presence of low pathogenic avian influenza; information in handwritten notes is factual data not exempt from disclosure, but disclosure of telephone numbers to be redacted).

National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. Schafer, No. CV08-1004-JCC (W.D. Wash. Jul. 8, 2008)(temporary restraining order issued which stops grazing and hay production on 24 million acres of land enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program; defendant (USDA Secretary) may not open CRP land without an environmental assessment; plaintiffs’ clearly showed that defendant’s decision to authorize haying and grazing could cause irreparable harm to wildlife habitat; arguments on motion for preliminary injunction set for July 17).

Ranchers Cattlemen Action Legal Fund, United Stockgrowers of America, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture, No. CIV 07-1023, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51604 (D. S.D. Jul. 3, 2008)(plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction against defendant’s “over 30-month” (OTM) rule which opened Canadian border to imports of live cattle born after March 1, 1999, and beef products from Canadian cattle of any age granted in part; case remanded to defendant to promptly provide notice and comment on OTM beef provisions and to revise any provisions of OTM rule deemed necessary; remainder of plaintiff’s case stayed during administrative proceeding required by remand).

Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc., et al., No. 07-41, 2008 U.S. LEXIS 5261 (U.S. Jun. 25, 2008), rev’g, 491 F.3d 878 (8th Cir. 2007)(tribal member mortgaged tribal fee land to bank which was subsequently deeded to bank in lieu of foreclosure; bank leased property to defendant with option to buy, but defendant could not exercise option; bank then sold land to non-tribal members; tribal members sued in tribal court and tribal court found that bank had discriminated against tribe by selling land to non-members on more favorable terms with tribe awarded damages and option to buy portion of land; Eighth Circuit affirmed and U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari; U.S. Supreme Court reversed – tribal court lacked authority to adjudicate discrimination claim; bank had standing to raise jurisdictional challenge; case not within Montana exceptions to general rule that Indian tribe lacks authority to regulate activities of non-members; and tribe’s limited authority to regulate non-member activities on reservation did not permit tribe to regulate sale of non-Indian fee land). 

In re Southeastern Milk Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-MD-1000, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44541 (E.D. Tenn. Jun. 6, 2008)(class action lawsuit brought against Southern Marketing Agency (formed by Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.) for alleged conspiracy to suppress prices paid for raw milk while simultaneously raising prices to the region's retailers in violation of the Sherman Act; defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim on basis that Capper Volstead Act provides immunity denied because such defense cannot be resolved through a motion to dismiss).

Farm Raised Salmon Cases, No. B182901a, 2008 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 4000 (Cal. Ct. App. May 16, 2008)(plaintiffs alleged facts sufficient to state a claim under state consumer protection statute that grocery stores sold artificially colored farm-raised salmon without disclosure of that fact to consumers; plaintiffs claim that such conduct constitutes unfair competition, violation of state Consumers Legal Remedies Act, false advertising and negligent misrepresentation).

In re Peanut Crop Insurance Litigation, No. 07-1145, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 9899 (4 th Cir. May 8, 2008)(case involves action against government concerning indemnification of losses covered by a privately issued, governmentally backed insurance policy; trial court granted summary judgment for farmers but trial court decision vacated and case remanded because (1) policy did not create any contractual obligation for insurers to indemnify the farmers for lost peanuts in 2002 at $.31 quota rate since it was contingent on 2002 farm poundage quota allocations being made to individual farmers, and such allocations were never made; (2) prevention doctrine misapplied insomuch as indemnification of the farmers did not depend on the allocation of quotas by the government; and (3) detrimental reliance not present because government programs are subject to congressional modification and farmers had been notified that there would be revisions to the peanut quota program).

Wolfhole, Inc., et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture, NO. 1:07CV73 CDP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31738 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 17, 2008)(USDA decision to deny eligibility of tree-farm operation for Conservation Security Program is contrary to the evidence, arbitrary and capricious, and not entitled to deference; regulation defining, in part, eligible agricultural land as forest land if an incidental part of the agricultural operation could not be read so as to deny forest land from CSP eligibility in situations where the forest land is the agricultural operation itself).

Rick's Mushroom Service, Inc. v. United States, No. 2007-5137, 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 6904 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2008)(action involving cost-share agreement between government and plaintiff for implementing conservation practices in mushroom waste recycling facility; court affirmed dismissal of plaintiff's action seeking indemnification from government for costs incurred in defending and settling third party claims).

Monsanto Co. v. Woods, No. 4:08-CV-00137 CEJ, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23514 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 25, 2008)(patent infringement action also involving state law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment and breach of contract for defendant’s alleged unauthorized use of plaintiff’s seed technology; plaintiff seeks expedited discovery to minimize risk of loss to seed and crop in order to protect evidence; court adopts “good cause” standard for determining whether expedited discovery warranted; plaintiff met standard and entitled to expedited discovery).

Kawamura v. Organic Pastures Dairy Co., LLC, 160 Cal. App. 4th 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008)(dairy farm that produces all the milk that it processes from its own herd meets definition of "handler" and is not exempt from participating in state mandated pricing pool; thus, administrative fees and assessments apply to farm's processed milk).

Levine v. Conner, No. C 05-04764 MHP, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15291 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2008)(USDA’s interpretive rule excluding chickens, turkeys and other poultry species from the Humane Methods Slaughter Act ("HMSA") of 1958 (7 U.S.C. §§1901 et seq.) upheld).

American Bird Conservancy, Inc., et al. v. Federal Communications Commission, et al., 516 F.3d 1027 (D.C. Cir. 2008)(FCC must follow appropriate procedures under NEPA, ESA and MBTA to ensure that migratory birds are not killed by FCC towers).

Her v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 07-2017, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14660 (W.D. Ark. Feb. 27, 2008) (RICO claim against defendant, who was responsible for providing financial data to FSA, fails).

McElmurry v. USDA, 535 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (S.D. Ga. 2008) (FSA farm program administrative appeal case involving prevented planting question; issue was whether land was environmentally contaminated to such a degree that crops couldn’t be planted).

Multi AG Media, LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture, 515 F.3d 1224 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (USDA databases subject to FOIA request; public interest in disclosure outweighed private interests involved).