In re Genetically Modified Rice Litigation, No. 4:06MD1811, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114731 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 9, 2009)

(on various motions for summary judgment, court holds that Plant Protection Act and regulations thereunder do not allow for low level adventitious presence of regulated genetically modified rice in the commercial rice supply; North Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act does not provide cause of action to plaintiffs that have no operations in the state; economic loss doctrine not applicable to plaintiffs' claims because claim does not involve any loss to property that was subject of a contract and property not alleged to be defective; no public nuisance for defendant's (Bayer) contamination of rice supply, but genuine dispute remains concerning whether defendant's use of its cooperators' land interfered with the plaintiffs' use of their land in terms of the type of rice that could be planted on the plaintiffs' land; no negligence per se based on APHIS regulations or state law; no affirmative defense of intervening cause - Bayer had duty to introduce GMO rice without contaminating non-GMO rice; damages to share-rent landlords also to be issue at trial; issue of punitive damages matter for trial; trial scheduled for January 2010). 

CALT does not provide legal advice. Any information provided on this website is not intended to be a substitute for legal services from a competent professional. CALT's work is supported by fee-based seminars and generous private gifts. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in the material contained on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Iowa State University.

RSS​ Facebook Twitter