Case Summaries

(CWA wetland case involving “adjacency” issue; case primarily procedural in nature, but also involves proposed constitutional takings claim).

(plaintiff notified that a livestock waste control facility required and plaintiff hired defendant to provide environmental consulting services and submit permit application to state for construction and operation of livestock waste control facility; defendant submitted incomplete application and missed deadline for resubmitted application; EPA issued compliance order to plaintiff and notice of violation of CWA; plaintiff sued for breach of contract, negligence and breach of warranty; trial court granted summary judgment for plaintiff on negligence claim which was affirmed on appeal, but issue of material fact remained as to causation of plaintiff’s damages so summary judgment for plaintiff on that issue reversed). 

(easement case; when easement expressly created, but never used, use of easement area not adverse and did not trigger statutorily-mandated period of time for adverse possession until easement holder need to use the easement, demanded to use it, and was denied the right to use it; result was that burdened property owners had not terminated the easement holder’s right to use the easement as a surface right-of-way). 

(state (California) estate tax may only be assessed in an amount equal to the maximum allowable amount of the credit for state death taxes permitted under the I.R.C., and if the tax does not result in a total state and federal death tax liability in excess of the liability owed to the U.S.).

(farm lease case; no breach by tenant in planting beet crop; landowner’s repudiation constituted anticipatory breach). 

(spendthrift trust containing farm property invalid under Iowa law; debtor retained enough control over trust corpus such that trust property included in bankruptcy estate). 

(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). 

(worker’s compensation case; employee not an agricultural employee at time injury sustained and, thus, entitled to worker’s compensation benefits; plaintiff owned and operated 685-acre farm and defendant repaired and maintained farm machinery and equipment, operated ground-planting and harvesting equipment, sorted and loaded hogs and supervised farming operations in plaintiff’s absence; plaintiff injured while assisting a welder on the farm; court noted that employees can be employed in a dual capacity, but plaintiff not working as farm employee at time of injury as defined by Ind. Code §22-3-2-9(a)).   

(debtor’s motion for permission to sell calves and milo and use proceeds plus additional proceeds from earlier milo sales to pay crop insurance premium, with balance used in farm operation granted; bank adequately protected and debtor could not obtain crop insurance for 2008 crop unless premium paid for 2007 crop year).

(RICO claim against defendant, who was responsible for providing financial data to FSA, fails). 

(plaintiff, a Michigan winery who wanted to ship directly to AZ consumers but was barred by AZ law, brought constitutional challenge based on “dormant” commerce clause; AZ law upheld). 

(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).

(personal injury action for raccoon bite; premises liability case involving issue of status of entrant and resulting duty owed plaintiff; assumption of risk and proximate causation issues also involved). 

(tractor fire case where plaintiff sued for damages based on negligence in design and manufacturing and breach of warranty; fire destroyed the tractor and other implements; defendant asserted that negligence claim barred by economic loss doctrine because property damage was only to property involved in the lawsuit; court held that tractor implements were separate property and negligent design claim not barred by economic loss doctrine). 

(portion of farmer’s debts held not non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. §§523(a)(2)(A) or 523(a)(4); evidence unclear as to whether debtor made misrepresentations).  

(FCC must follow appropriate procedures under NEPA, ESA and MBTA to ensure that migratory birds are not killed by FCC towers). 

(USDA databases subject to FOIA request; public interest in disclosure outweighed private interests involved).

(dairy farm not subject to animal cruelty claim by plaintiff; state law did not provide for a private right of action).

(state recreational use statute held applicable to immunize landowner from liability for death of hunter on property who was shot by another hunter; statute did not require landowners to open property to general public, and statute clear that if landowner doesn’t charge for recreational activities, landowner assumes no responsibility for damage or injury to any other person caused by recreational entrant’s act or omission). 

(exchange of property between partnerships controlled by related persons qualifies for like-kind treatment).