Case Summaries

(plaintiff, cotton grower, leased land from an irrigation district and then entered into an agreement with a farming company to plant and harvest cotton; the farming company  entered into a joint venture with a lender’s sister company to obtain financing; the plaintiff, irrigation district, and joint venture company then signed a subordination agreement granting the lender first priority in the cotton and proceeds thereof; after the cotton was harvested and sent to the processing company, the plaintiff, lender and joint venture company all claimed an interest in the proceeds; the processing company filed an interpleader action, and the trial court ordered the release of the funds to the lender; plaintiff appealed, and the court affirmed, finding that the lender was not required to file a claim in the interpleader action to get relief and that the security agreement was enforceable, even though the plaintiff did not sign it because the plaintiff had executed the subordination agreement that granted the lender a first priority lien).


(plaintiffs granted an oil and gas lease to defendant’s assignor, which drilled several nonproductive gas wells on the property; after the assignment of the lease to defendant, defendant inadvertently failed to pay an annual “shut-in fee” required to extend the lease; believing it still had a valid lease on the property, defendant tested a well and constructed a gravel pit; upon discovering that defendant was still working on the property, plaintiffs attempted to renegotiate the lease; when the negotiations failed, plaintiffs filed an action alleging trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and conversion of natural gas; the trial court granted compensation to the plaintiffs for the amount of natural gas flared off while defendant tested the well, but granted summary judgment for defendant on the majority of the claims; in affirming, the court ruled that plaintiffs had failed to present any evidence supporting its claims of unjust enrichment and trespass and nuisance stemming from the alleged dumping of thousands of gallons of brine water on plaintiffs’ property). 


(plaintiffs were inter-related companies in the business of processing corn and feed ingredients and brokering grain between buyers and sellers; defendant grain company entered into a written corn marketing agreement (CMA) with one of the plaintiff companies, which was 98% owned by another of the plaintiff companies; plaintiffs, alleging that defendant breached the agreement by failing to provide profit and loss statements and depriving plaintiffs of profits, sued defendant for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims; defendant filed seven counterclaims, also alleging breach of contract; on cross-motions for summary judgment, the court ruled that, as a matter of law, a joint venture existed between the plaintiff party to the CMA and defendant; the fact that the parties called their agreement a “merchandising agreement” rather than a partnership did not preclude them from possibly forming a partnership as well; the court bifurcated plaintiff’s accounting claim (equity claim) from the remaining issues at law and set a bench trial for the accounting claim first, followed by a jury trial on the breach of contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing claims). 


(plaintiffs entered into an oral lease agreement with defendant  under which plaintiffs used defendant’s property to operate a cow-calf operation; the parties also entered into an oral agreement under which plaintiffs cared for defendant’s cattle, in exchange for one-half of the net calf sale proceeds ; when a dispute arose between the parties and defendant refused to allow the October sale of his cattle, plaintiffs served upon defendant an agister’s lien for continuing to care for the cattle; plaintiffs obtained a court order to sell the cattle in February, and the district court ruled that although plaintiffs entitled to ½ of the sales amount, the agister’s lien was “invalid as under the terms of [an] implied contract”; in reversing, the South Dakota Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiffs acquired a valid agister’s lien when defendant refused to sell his cattle in October, as he had always done; under SDCL 40-27-1, plaintiffs were entitled to impose a lien, retain possession of the cattle, and continue caring for them until the February sale; prejudgment interest was also mandatory,  not discretionary). 


(bankruptcy court determined that lessors’ letter stating that “as a result of your material breach,” we have “voted to terminate” your lease was not a proper termination of a lease for a Christmas tree farm; under VA law, lessors were required to make an actual demand for payment of past due amounts before the lease could be terminated; forfeitures were never favored in law, and to enforce a forfeiture without a prior demand would be “grossly inequitable”). 


(plaintiff dairy farmer filed a breach of contract action against defendant, alleging that his corn crop failed because defendant, which plaintiff hired to spray his crop, either sprayed the crop improperly or used defective products in doing so; defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging that plaintiff’s claim sounded in tort and was thus barred by a two-year statute of limitations; in denying defendant’s motion, the court ruled that plaintiff had set forth enough facts to state a claim for breach of contract; the general rule was that when a complaint could be construed as either sounding in tort or contract, it would be presumed to be on contract if the tort action was barred by the two-year statute).


(a seller and a buyer signed a USDA option-to-purchase contract; contract granted buyer an irrevocable three-month option to purchase the seller’s 150 acres, and the buyer recorded the option; two days before expiration of option period, buyer (having received notice from the USDA that his loan would be approved “next week”) sent notice to seller that he had received loan approval and was exercising his option to purchase; buyer’s loan approved following week, “subject to the availability of funds,” which were not “immediately available”; seller sought to quiet title to his property, and buyer filed counterclaim seeking specific performance; in affirming chancellor court’s grant of summary judgment to seller, appellate court ruled that the buyer’s acceptance of offer was conditional, depending on future events that may or may not have happened; thus, buyer never validly exercised his option to purchase). 


(petitioner received income from her husband's S corporation in transaction involving I.R.C. Sec. 351 in which property was contributed to corporation in return for stock; property in question was an amortizable I.R.C. Sec. 197 intangible property which is treated as I.R.C. Sec. 1245 property; I.R.C. Sec. 1239 treats gain from sale of depreciable property between related taxpayers as ordinary income and not capital gain; court noted that 50 percent ownership rule applied and examined voting rights and valuation of both common and preferred stock of corporation, and held that petitioner's gain was ordinary in nature


(defendant claimed that plaintiff breached contract for sale of horse; defendant sought possession of horse and $74,000 judgment; default judgment entered against plaintiff and plaintiff later sought to have judgment set aside for defective service due to incorrect statement that plaintiff had 20 days to respond (correct number of days was 30); court refused to set judgment aside; on appeal, court reversed on basis that service requirements must be strictly complied with; default judgment set aside). 


(tenant and landlord executed an agreement on May 3, 2010, for the lease of a farm from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012; lease provided that $51,100 annual rent was due “April 1 of each year of the lease”; when tenant failed to pay any rent during 2010, the landlord filed suit, and the trial court entered judgment in landlord’s favor; in affirming the judgment, the court ruled that the trial court properly considered extrinsic evidence showing the intent of the parties as to when rent was due; the court found that although the due date was ambiguous, the rent was due either May 3, 2010, or December 31, 2010; under either interpretation, the tenant breached the contract; the court urged practitioners drafting leases that would be executed after the effective date of the lease to include a clause specifying that the initial payment was “due upon execution” or upon some specific date thereafter). 


(oil and gas leases granted defendant (lessee) right to match any third-party offer to lease land for purposes of oil and gas exploration; question was whether on defendant’s refusal to match third-party offer plaintiffs (landowners) could terminate defendant’s lease and enter into new lease with third-party immediately; trial court rejected plaintiffs’ argument; pertinent language granted defendant preferential right and did not impose duty on defendant; no right to terminate lease granted by clause language; trial court decision affirmed).


(two brothers inherited equal shares in 18-acre tract with two houses on lake; property conveyed to one brother so as to defraud other brother’s ex-wife who had substantial child support judgment against other brother; oral agreement alleged that proceeds of any sale to be divided 50-50; tract ultimately sold on installment basis and payments split equally; “owner” brother died at time when $185,000 balance due remained on contract and other brother filed probate claim for his “one-half” of proceeds pursuant to oral agreement; trial court determined that balance due on contract be split 50/50 pursuant to oral contract; trial court judgment affirmed; use of letter of deceased brother’s attorney referring to oral agreement was not basis of judgment, but conduct of parties was; surviving brother’s account of terms of agreement complete and clear). 


(plaintiff contracted to sell potatoes to defendant and claimed that defendant breached contract, and defendant brought counterclaim that plaintiff breached contract; both parties sought summary judgment and defendant claimed that plaintiff was required to build railway spur via contract so that potatoes could be loaded on railway cars the defendant supplied; court determined that contract required defendant to furnish railcars or trucks to take delivery of potatoes and that contract did not give defendant to take delivery solely by rail or require that plaintiff build private spur to deliver potatoes). 


(plaintiff divested itself of certain soybean assets in 2003, granting licenses for its soybean technology to two different seed development companies; in 2007, one licensee and defendant entered into an agreement to develop and sell E3, a triple stack soybean event conferring tolerance in soybeans to three different herbicides; pursuant to the agreement, the licensee granted a sublicense to  defendant, but the licensee retained ownership of E3; plaintiff filed an action against defendant, alleging that defendant’s work with E3 was infringing plaintiff’s intellectual property; plaintiff argued that the licensee had no authority to sublicense commercialization rights; in granting summary judgment to defendant, the court ruled that the plain and ordinary language of the licensing agreement did not, as plaintiff alleged, strip the licensee of commercialization rights granted to the other licensee, instead, the agreement provided that those rights would be shared by the two licensees; as such, the licensee had the authority to sublicense full commercialization rights to defendant).


(case involves hog production contract between parties; plaintiff to provide weaned pigs every nine weeks over 14 month period and defendant, pig farmer, agreed to pay for pigs received; plaintiff delivered pigs and defendant paid via check, but check bounced and plaintiff sued; defendant claimed that plaintiff could have mitigated damages by repossessing pigs and reselling them; court determined that transaction involved sale of goods covered by state (MN) version of UCC Article 2 and that plaintiff need not mitigate damages once buyer accepts goods; under MN version of Article 9 (which applied because plaintiff had security interest in pigs), plaintiff could repossess or seek to recover purchase price; thus plaintiff not required to repossess pigs; plaintiff awarded summary judgment for purchase price plus interest as contract required). 


(defendant sold seed potatoes to a party who prepared the seed and sold it to plaintiff; seed allegedly failed to germinate in timely manner and plaintiff removed crop, planted mitigation crop, and sued defendant for deceptive descriptions of seed, breach of contract and breach of express and implied covenants;  defendant moved to dismiss; seed was certified as “blue tag”; defendant’s motion to dismiss denied).


(an owner and a purchaser entered into a contract for the sale of real property; the contract required the owner to obtain a “feedlot permit” and to assign that permit to the purchaser; the parties could not agree on the meaning of the term “feedlot permit,” and they did not close the deal;  the owner, arguing the term meant only an operating permit, filed a breach of contract action seeking monetary damages and/or rescission of the contract; the purchaser argued the contract required a pollution permit and an operating permit; the trial court cancelled the contract and the appellate court affirmed; the evidence demonstrated that there was never a “meeting of the minds” as to the meaning of the essential term “feedlot permit”; as such, rescission was the proper remedy and the parties were entitled to be restored to their former positions).


(supplier sold USDA-approved food ingredients to poultry company, which used the ingredients to process poultry products before shipping them to its corporate affiliate for sale to the public; case involves lawsuit over poultry company's receipt of shipment mistakenly containing non-approved food ingredient, which poultry company inadvertently used to process thousands of pounds of poultry; USDA ultimately required affiliate to destroy misbranded product, and affiliate sued supplier for breach of contract and breach of warranty as a third-party beneficiary; supplier filed third-party complaint for breach of contract and contribution against poultry company, and poultry company responded with six counterclaims, five of which sought declaratory judgments that the supplier had breached its contract and warranties and that it was required to indemnify poultry company for any losses; in dismissing the five counterclaims, court found that they were not ripe for adjudication because poultry company’s potential damages were “speculative and contingent,” as opposed to “certainly impending” since it was possible that poultry company would owe nothing to the affiliate; finding not overcome by fact that poultry company had voluntarily agreed to pay its affiliate the amount of any damages not recovered from the supplier).


(plaintiffs’ horse leased for breeding but could enter horse competitions if health permitted; terms of lease did not provide for lease payments, but for defendant to pay all horse-related expenses; horse bred to of defendant’s mares and later entered horse competitions which increased value of any future breedings; plaintiff funded some competition costs and defendant claimed existence of oral agreement to continued competition funding and that defendant could keep horse; at time plaintiff sued for return of horse, defendant had obtained frozen semen from horse with low viability rate; trial court granted replevin action for plaintiff and ruled that lease, by its terms, had expired; on appeal, court held that defendant failed to prove unjust enrichment claim – low viability of semen and defendant had received two offspring at no charge).


(ranch owner filed a breach of contract action against custom seeder, alleging that the custom seeder’s poor performance was the cause of failed barley crop; custom seeder filed a third-party action against seed supplier, arguing failure to instruct; the third-party complaint was settled, and the trial court found that the custom seeder did not breach its contract with the ranch owner; in affirming, the Montana Supreme Court found the trial court did not err by ruling that the custom seeder did not breach the contract by failing to object to the rocky field conditions; field preparation was the responsibility of the ranch owner and the seed supplier; the trial court also did not err in finding that having seed on the ground and inconsistent placement were foreseeable consequences of the field conditions and not indicative of a legally-deficient performance; trial court had not accepted an impossibility defense; custom seeder performed, and its performance was acceptable within the contract terms under the circumstances).


(plaintiff, a fish farm, sued defendant, fish feed manufacturer, in tort and contract based on issues with fish feed defendant supplied to plaintiff; defendant hired to prepare custom fish feed for plaintiff, successor in interest to original buyer of custom feed; plaintiff claimed that level of fishmeal in fish food insufficient and ultimately switched to buying food from different company; plaintiff claimed that health of fish improved after switch and claimed that was evidence of defendant's negligence and breach of contract warranties; defendant countersued for breach of contract; court determined that plaintiff's claims not preempted by Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) because material issue of fact existed as to whether defendant could have manufactured fish food containing the contracted level of fishmeal and taurine without supplementation - summary judgment on issue denied; plaintiff's tort-based claims barred by economic loss doctrine because plaintiff seeking damages for lost profits rather than physical injury to plaintiff's fish; summary judgment denied on plaintiff's breach of implied warranty claims). 


(plaintiff owns over 4,000 acres and entered into oil and gas lease with company in 2004 that assigned lease to defendant; plaintiff sued to have lease nullified on basis that it did not anticipate use of fracking; plaintiff had earlier transferred some of subject property into conservation easements with state DNR to protect areas around creek and associated tributaries from development; lease agreement barred drilling near creek and associated streams and gave plaintiff right to approve drilling sites; plaintiff construed delay rental clause to require drilling to commence on or before May 5, 2011, but defendant disagreed with that interpretation; in early 2011, defendant notified plaintiff of plans to horizontal drill from another property that would go under plaintiff’s property and that drill site was larger than allowed in lease; plaintiff sought to nullify lease on basis that defendant had not paid in full for delayed drilling on balance of property and that plaintiff had not approved horizontal drill site and that fracking not anticipated in lease; court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment because genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether plaintiff unreasonably withheld or delayed approval for drill site which means reserves for trial issue of whether defendant properly extended lease beyond primary term; likewise, genuine issue of material fact exists as to parties’ understanding of meaning of “delay rental” as used in lease, so issue of whether defendant required to tender delay rental payments during secondary term to be resolved at trial). 


(plaintiff ran cows on defendant’s ranch via oral 60/40 share arrangement; defendant cared for and fed livestock in return for 60 percent of calf crop; plaintiff, a veterinarian, provided veterinarian services; in fall of 1997, plaintiff supervised inventory and evaluation of cows on ranch in which plaintiff had 108 cows; written lease executed in 2000 with plaintiff to provide 130 cows to be cared for by defendant with plaintiff receiving 40 percent of calf crop; plaintiff died in 2004 and defendant returned seven of plaintiff’s cows; plaintiff’s estate representative sued for breach of contract; trial court determined that plaintiff failed to furnish 130 cows as contractually required amounting to failure of consideration and the estate representative did not prove defendant’s breach; appellate court affirmed).


(plaintiff was tenant on farmland that was going to be sold; plaintiff talked with president of defendant about obtaining loan for purchase of property and claimed that defendant agreed to make loan with specified interest rate and 30-year repayment period; plaintiff was successful bidder at auction, but defendant did not make loan to allow plaintiff to complete purchase transaction; plaintiff sued for breach of contract; trial court ruled for defendant on basis that statute of frauds barred action; on appeal, court affirmed; alleged contract could not be performed within one year, no partial performance by simply bidding on property at auction and paying earnest money and funds for earnest money came from pre-existing line of credit)


(plaintiff executed a contract to purchase tract from defendant in “as is” condition; before sale plaintiff hired lawyer to investigate tract and learned, post-sale, that some improvements on tract were constructed without permits or otherwise violated zoning laws and that land contained wetlands; plaintiff paid for some required changes to tract and sued seller for contract rescission based on misrepresentation and mutual mistake; defendant claimed that plaintiff’s lawyer knew about issues wither respect to tract and the such knowledge imputed to plaintiff; trial court granted summary judgment to defendant, and appellate court affirmed; attorney’s knowledge imputed to client under agency theory). 


(plaintiff, tenant under crop-share lease with father, sued brothers and a corporation of one brother when parents conveyed two-thirds of leased land to one brother via contract and other third to same brother via gift; plaintiff claimed contract unconscionable, that contract constituted conversion of the land due to inadequate consideration, that brothers tortiously interfered with plaintiff’s business and inheritance, and intentionally or negligently inflicted emotional distress; trial court granted summary judgment for defendants; plaintiff’s unconscionability claim barred because plaintiff not party to contract and parents testified as to satisfaction with contract; conversion claim fails for same reason; no wrongful interference with plaintiff’s possessory interest and contract price irrelevant; tortious interference with contract claim fails due to lack of proof that defendants entered into purchase contract to buy land with purpose of interfering with plaintiff’s lease agreement; claim for tortious interference with bequest fails because due to lack of evidence that parents intended to leave farmland to plaintiff or that parents incompetent to amend will; no intentional infliction of emotional distress due to lack of evidence of invasion of legally protected interest of plaintiff by willful and malicious conduct). 


(a grain cooperative challenged a trial court order dismissing its application to compel arbitration in a dispute arising under a contract for the sale of 100,000 bushels of corn by a farming company to the cooperative; the farming company alleged that the contract was unenforceable under the statute of frauds because the contract was unsigned and the farming company had received no written confirmation; in reversing the trial court’s holding that there was no enforceable contract under the statute of frauds, 810 ILCS 5/2-201(2), the court found that a question of fact existed as to whether the farming company received a written confirmation of the oral contract from the cooperative; the case was remanded for further proceedings). 


(appellate court affirmed trial court’s cancellation of an oil and gas lease as to 150 acres of a 160-acre tract; lessee’s predecessors had secured the lease on the 160-acre parcel in 1950, but had only developed 10 acres; trial court’s finding that lessee had breached its implied covenant for reasonable exploration and development was supported by substantial evidence; lessee’s claim that it could not conduct the 3D seismic study required for future development because the adjacent landowner blocked its efforts was unavailing because lessee had undertaken no exploration or production for nearly 60 years; trial court properly considered that termination of the lease would probably allow landowner to conduct further development; trial court did not err in ordering lease cancellation instead of a cancellation conditional upon future development; because the lessee had no plans for further development in the foreseeable future, a conditional remedy would not have been practical or adequate). 


(appeal from summary judgment declaring option to purchase land invalid for lack of consideration and that statute of limitations barred claim; appellate court reversed and remanded holding contract contained several promises all bargained for with consideration as stated in contract, so option was valid; case remanded for factual determination regarding whether clause provided option in future and whether defendants’ sought to exercise option in reasonable time; court denied statute of limitations claim because did not begin to run until breach of contract occurred).


(appeal of a jury verdict in favor of the purchaser in competing breach of contract claims concerning melon production; jury determined neither party fully performed their obligations under the contract, but that growers unfairly interfered with the purchaser’s rights and awarded damages to purchaser; on appeal, growers contend the claim cannot stand in the absence of a finding of a breach of contract, which they argue the jury did not find; court held that under verdict form, jury was never asked to reach question of whether a breach occurred because jury held neither party fully performed their obligations under the contract, so growers’ argument failed; court also held that jury’s award of damages was not dependent on a specified quantity to be grown in the contract, but was based on damages of reasonable expectations of the crop; court also held that sufficient evidence presented to award damages; judgment affirmed). 


(plaintiffs leased natural gas to defendants and claimed that defendants had deliberately and fraudulently underpaid gas royalties for over 10 years and covered up the fraud by falsifying accounting statements; defendants claimed that suit time-barred by statute of limitations; court held that state (OH) law incorporated by reference UCC four-year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions involving sale of goods, thus plaintiffs could proceed with breach of contract claim involving royalty underpayments occurring within four years of filing of complaint; court also determined that leases were divisible contracts, thus statute of limitations ran separately from date of each monthly payment; court also determined that claim of fraudulent concealment sufficient to survive motion to dismiss; court reversed district court’s dismissal of contract claim; case remanded). 


(plaintiff filed motion for attorney fees to enforce its arbitration award arising from a breach of grain contracts; defendant argued that attorney fees were subject to arbitration and that its inability to pay the judgment was justified because it could not pay the award; court held failure to present evidence of inability to pay was no legal justification for failing to pay and granted motion for attorney fees and costs in favor of  plaintiff).


(6,682 acres sold at auction via auction company; sale brochure delivered to plaintiff said that defendant seller would convey certain mineral rights along with the real estate; plaintiff relied on representations in brochure and paid $8.9 million for the land and mineral rights advertised in brochure and purchase agreement executed same day; purchase agreement contained integration clause stating that final bids subject to sellers' acceptance or rejection, and that seller warranted that they were selling 100 percent of their ownership in the mineral rights being sold; all real estate sold "as is"; transaction closed and two years later, plaintiff discovered it had not acquired mineral rights; mineral rights were actually owned by separate branch of seller’s family that had transferred them to an LLC which then leased them to another entity in return for bonus lease payments and future royalty payments; buyer’s attorneys did not conduct mineral title search ; plaintiff sued for breach of warranty deed and seisin, breach of purchase agreement, breach of auction sale agreement, fraud, reformation of purchase agreement and specific performance; and defendant moved to dismiss claim based on breach of auction sale agreement and court granted motion because purchase agreement's integration clause was clear and unambiguous and barred separate contract action based on earlier oral or written assurances not incorporated into purchase agreement and neither alleged oral agreement or auction brochure incorporated into purchase agreement; auction brochure stated that purchase agreement controlled terms of sale; plaintiff can pursue contract remedy for breach of purchase agreement; on fraud claim that defendant's held themselves out as owning mineral rights that they promised to convey (plaintiff claimed that the family of sellers represented that actual part of the family that sold the land held mineral rights, but they actually did not (it was the non-contracting members of the family that held the mineral rights)); defendant’s motion to dismiss claim of fraud in inducement denied; defendant's motion for judgment on pleadings with respect to reformation and specific performance of purchase agreement claims denied).


(district court upheld magistrate judge ruling staying proceedings and holding that arbitration required for dispute between seed company and purchasers under terms of contract received and accepted by purchasers; arbitration of non-purchaser plaintiffs complaints also required because purchasers of seed acted as agents for nonpurchasers; nonpurchasers also held to arbitration agreement because they sought to enforce rights under seed sale contract, thus they were estopped from picking and choosing enforcement of provisions in contract).


(court overturned grant of summary judgment in favor of oil drillers; "calculate and pay" clause in oil contract was ambiguous regarding whether overriding royalties were suspended along with government's interest under Deep Water Royalty Relief Act; case remanded for factual inquiry regarding intent of parties; dissent filed stating provision was not ambiguous and royalties should be suspended).


(plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment denied due to questions of fact on claims related to Plant Variety protection Act, Lanham Act violations and breach of contract for sales of turf grass after agreement terminated defendants' ability to sell TifBlair brand turf grass).


(cross motions for summary judgment filed in gas lease dispute; court held plain meaning of lease stated that gross proceeds are to be paid and these would be determined by purchase price not price received without delivery charges, but questions of fact remained regarding whether the sale of gas was made to an affiliate of lessee; court also held that contract required payment per rod for each pipeline when two rods were placed in same trench).


(plaintiff manufactured A-frame chicken cages, which defendant installed for customers; a dispute arose regarding the structural integrity of the A-frame cages that defendant had installed for a customer; defendant argued problems caused by plaintiff and plaintiff believed defendant's negligent installation allowed for rusting; a settlement agreement was reached between plaintiff and defendant concerning some claims made by defendant's customers in which plaintiff agreed to provide parts and defendant agreed to indemnify plaintiff; additional parts had rust issues and the customers received parts directly from plaintiff; plaintiff notified defendant regarding the claims, but defendant did not respond and plaintiff settled the claim; defendant brought summary judgment motion to plaintiff's claim for contractual indemnity; court held indemnification agreement was solely for claims arising from rusting brackets and later claims were for legs and cross arms, which were not covered by the agreement; court also held that plaintiff's decision to settle the claim was unreasonable as a matter if law because there was an statute of limitations issue, which would have been an absolute defense to the claims; plaintiff had no legal exposure on the claim; plaintiff's suit dismissed with prejudice).


(partnership sought specific performance of agreement to exchange parcels pursuant to survey to ensure adequate room for center-pivot irrigation; deeds not transferred and property sold to third party; third party brought suit to quiet title in disputed parcel; trial court held statute of limitations had run against partnership's claim and ruled in favor of third party; appellate court held that because partnership was in possession of property, five-year statute of limitations does not bar lawsuit for specific performance; appellate court also held that 50 foot strip of property was held in trust for partnership and belonged to partnership; court also held it was error for trial court to determine third party easement was 30 feet when evidence insufficient to determine, so that issue was remanded; court also overturned injunction on partnership from spraying ingress and egress road with water from its center pivot because evidence showed water did not materially impede third party from using road; court declined attorney fee award for either party).


(plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend complaint involving breeding hog contract in which company provided to plaintiff boar semen containing disease that caused damage to breeding stock; court allowed amendment to reflect defendant’s name change as it was uncontested; court denied motion to add breach of contract claim based on additional agreement because it would require use of extrinsic evidence to vary unambiguous terms of contract not permitted under choice of law provision jurisdiction or state law in which suit was brought; court denied motion to add negligent misrepresentation claims as futile; claim based on negligence, so no claim allowed under state law and no duty owed to plaintiff regarding information; fraudulent misrepresentation claim also fails because no allegations that defendant knew statements made were false). 


(case involves contract to develop farm owned by defendants; plaintiff entered into purchase contract for $13 million; under contract, plaintiff could walk away from transaction after "due diligence" period and defendant would retain down payment of $650,000; if defendant breached contract, down payment forfeited and defendant liable for plaintiff's costs; plaintiff given right of specific performance under contract; as plaintiff sought financing and regulatory approval real estate market went south; at time when plaintiff not ready to go to closing, plaintiff demanded that defendant cure title defect even though defendant under no obligation to do so until closing; plaintiff sued for breach even though no closing scheduled and buyer still wanting to go forward with contract; defendant cleared title and made demand to proceed to settlement and plaintiff sued for return of downpayment and costs; court determined that plaintiff merely trying to force defendant to provide cost-free option period and that defendant not in breach; judgment for defendant). 


(plaintiff sued in tort and contract for alleged sale of defective (moldy) pig feed by defendant; defendant moved to dismiss the tort-based claims under the economic loss doctrine; motion granted).


(appeal of trial court decision in contract dispute; plaintiff had contract with defendant to sell grass seed to defendant; defendant breached contract; plaintiff stored excess seed for several years but finally sold some seed overage; appellate court agreed trial court erred in not awarding damages to plaintiff under UCC, which would have been difference between contract price and market price on date of breach; trial court also erred in failing to award attorney fees based on lack of pleading because the request was properly plead; appellate court held that choice of law required reviewing contract under Oregon law because contract silent; court held whether contract language provided for attorney fees under recovery of “charges for collection” was ambiguous and remanded case to trial court to determine meaning).


(ruling on defendant’s motion to dismiss various claims in contract dispute regarding mineral-rights lease on plaintiff’s land; plaintiff sought reformation of the contract but court held no evidence contract failed to state intention of parties, so reformation not viable and claim dismissed; plaintiff sought nullification of the contract as contrary to public policy because it was solicited by an unlicensed real estate broker, but court held contract unaffected by this as proper remedy would be to preclude broker from recovering fee and claim dismissed; plaintiff argued contract was unconscionable because trustees who signed lease were elderly, uneducated, and in poor health and contract unreasonably favors defendants; court held allegations sufficient to survive motion to dismiss; court also denied claim to deem a judicial ascertainment clause void as against public policy as established by state law; court also held because plaintiff did not assent to assignment of lease that defendant remains bound by the contract). 


(generic glyphosate sold by defendant to plaintiff and applied to land that plaintiff farmed; after application, corn crop died and plaintiff sued to recover damages on negligence, breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty theories; trial court granted summary judgment for defendant, but appellate court reversed and remanded case; plaintiff presented a viable theory that defendant supplied plaintiff with a contaminated 121-gallon container of generic glyphosate; genuine issue of material fact exists as to how ACCase inhibitor reached plaintiff's corn and trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendant on negligence and breach of warranty claims).


(judgment as a matter of law granted to plaintiff on contract claim; defendant admitted contract with plaintiff for crop inputs and that no payment had been made; no evidence that warranty or representation regarding “target” yields to be met were made by plaintiff and defendant not entitled to withhold payment due to any misrepresentation; insufficient evidence presented that application of manganese by plaintiff did not result in manganese toxicity and cause reduced yields; evidence instead showed farm consistently underperformed, manganese toxicity in corn in state had never been documented, and only soil sample presented by defendant “had literally been baked” in defendant’s oven).


(three cotton pickers caught fire in area of machine where lint and debris could collect, but was difficult to clean without disassembly; machines were destroyed and plaintiff paid owner for losses; plaintiff brought claim as subrogee to recover for costs of machinery paid to owners; defendant filed motion to dismiss or summary judgment; defendant’s attempted disclaimer of implied warranties were not valid under state law, so they did not protect from claims made; under plaintiff’s claim of breach of implied warranty, court held defendant was a merchant and manufacturer under state law and questions of fact remained as to whether cotton pickers were merchantable at time of sale and whether notice of alleged breach was given to defendant with given opportunity to correct, so claim survived summary judgment; plaintiff’s claim of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, however, was dismissed because cotton pickers were purchased to pick cotton, their ordinary use, so there was no proof of the claim).


(motion to transfer venue due to improper venue and inconvenient forum; litigation involves breach of hay delivery agreement; defendants failed to raise improper venue in a pre-answer motion or in the answer, so issue waived; court held Nebraska was not an inconvenient forum because plaintiff’s witnesses from state, witnesses traveling from states closer to Nebraska than proposed venue, and contract required delivery through the state; motion denied).


(contract dispute regarding proceeds of wheat crop; tenant brought action against landlord for statements made to grain elevator regarding ownership of crop which caused damages to tenant; landlord failed to timely answer petition; tenant filed motion for default; landlord filed untimely answer and counterclaim; court held default judgment against landlord should be entered and counterclaim should be dismissed; on appeal, court disagreed with landlord’s contention that condition precedent must be pled in a valid contract action; court agreed counterclaim was compulsory because based on same contract and untimely, so dismissal was appropriate; district court judgment affirmed).


(appeal from small claims action in which court held contract for spraying 19-acre plot existed; damage occurred and both parties bore responsibility for the damage - the plaintiff for failing to inspect his fields and the defendant for failing to spray, plaintiff granted half damage award; on appeal, court upheld entire judgment as not against manifest weight of evidence).


Pages