Ag Docket Blog
Mistakes happen. Sometimes mistakes lead to legal liability, as in the case of negligence. But sometimes, where it’s apparent that a mistake in an instrument was a mutual one, equity steps in to “reform” the mistake. No harm. No foul. The document is reformed to reflect the true intent of the parties. A recent case from the Iowa Court of Appeals demonstrates the application of this doctrine.
A recent opinion from the Iowa Court of Appeals reminds us of the importance of written plans for family farming businesses.
On January 20, 2015, Dakota Access, LLC, filed with the Iowa Utilities Board a petition for a hazardous liquid pipeline permit.
A recent case from the Iowa Court of Appeals reminds us that in order to acquire title to the property of another through a prescriptive easement (a non-exclusive form of adverse possession), the plaintiff must strictly prove the elements of the claim. In this case, the plaintiff proffered no such proof.
The Minnesota Department of Revenue announced special relief last week for poultry producers in Minnesota who were impacted by the H5N2 avian influenza outbreak. The Department announced that these producers will not be assessed penalties or interest if the outbreak prevented them from filing state returns or paying state taxes on time.
A recent Fifth Circuit opinion established that a federal court has jurisdiction to review the EPA’s denial of a rulemaking petition. It did, however, go on to establish a “highly deferential” standard of review, placing upon the agency only a “slight” burden to justify its decision to decline a necessity determination.
Financial stress in agriculture creates numerous legal issues. One of those that may not necessarily be high on the “radar screen” involves the purchasing of machinery and equipment. Does it matter if the purchase is from a private party or an implement dealer? It just might. There are at least a couple of common scenarios to watch out for.
A federal court in Vermont recently denied the request of food manufacturers to enjoin the enforcement of Vermont’s new Genetic Engineering (GE) labeling law set to go into effect next year. The court did, however, also refuse to dismiss the majority of the plaintiffs’ claims. As such, the validity of the law remains unsettled, and more opinions will issue down the road.
We all know that the deadline for filing the federal income tax return is April 15.
The Iowa Court of Appeals Wednesday reduced a damages award granted to a couple who claimed their neighbor intentionally removed trees along their fence line. The plaintiffs, were self-described “tree people” who lived on a five and one-half acre rural land parcel. Their property adjoined that of the defendant, who was a farmer.
The Center for Agricultural Law and Taxation 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. The Center'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.