johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief

Oil Co. 817 n.w.2d 693 (minn. 2012) Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied pesticides to farm fields. No Minnesota case has addressed whether unwanted pesticide drift from a targeted field to an adjacent otherwise organic farming operation can constitute a trespass. But if, as the Johnsons contend, any applicationincluding driftwere prohibited by section 205.202(b), then section 205.671 would be superfluous. The regulations refer to the "unintended application of a prohibited substance," 205.202(c) (emphasis added), and they also refer to the " [a]pplication, including drift, of a prohibited substance," 205.400(f)(1) (emphasis added). 205.202(b), a third party's pesticide drift cannot cause a field to lose organic certification. But we conclude that the district court erred in (1) dismissing the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims to the extent those claims are not based on 7 C.F.R. Intro to Legal Research. The Johnsons, organic farmers, claimed that while Appellant, a cooperative, was spraying pesticide onto conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons' fields, some pesticide contaminated the Johnsons' organic fields. It seems to me that differences in size, quantity, and harmfulness of varying types of particulate matter will have an effect on whether the invasion by the substance causes a trespass. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. Plaintiffs brought actions ontrespass,nuisanceandnegligence per se. Cloud, MN, for respondent. Id. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 187. 205.202(b), within the context of the focus of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S. . 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. If the agent determines that a product intended to be sold as organic contains any [detectible] pesticide, the producer may be required to prove that any prohibited substance was not applied to that product. The use of different words in the two provisions supports the conclusion that the sections address different behavior. And because there was discretion to decertify, the court of appeals concluded that the Johnsons had offered sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment. Case brief Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012) Facts: Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member owned farm that has products and services, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnsons are organic farmers. We turn next to the district court's denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents of pesticide drift. If the intrusion interferes with the right to exclusive possession of property, the law of trespass applies. All rights reserved. Contact us. And while wafting odors will not affect the composition of the land, a liquid chemical pesticide or herbicide being sprayed for agricultural purposes will; by design, it descends and clings to soil or plants, killing organisms. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained Quimbee 37.2K subscribers Subscribe 2 Share 167 Should the agent determine that the residue came from the intentional application of a prohibited substance, the product may not be sold as organic. The court of appeals held that the phrase applied to it in section 205.202(b) included situations in which pesticides unintentionally came into contact with organic fields. Because the Cooperative was not, and could not be, the proximate cause of the Johnsons' damage, we hold that the district court properly granted summary judgment to the Cooperative on the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on section 205 .202(b). Every Bundle includes the complete text from each of the titles below: PLUS: Hundreds of law school topic-related videos from WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee Study Aids Case Briefs Overview Casebooks Case In other words, in order for products to be sold as organic, the organic farmer must not have applied prohibited substances to the field from which the product was harvested for a period of three years preceding the harvest. Did to 7 C.F.R. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. We hold that the phrase "applied to" in section 205.202(b) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide. 561.01. The MDA found that the cooperative repeatedly applied pesticide on windy days. As a pre-law student you are automatically registered for the Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course. Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) were organic farmers. 7 U.S.C. In Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., an organic farmer sued a member-owned farm products and services cooperative on claims including trespass, nuisance, and negligence after pesticide sprayed on conventional farm fields drifted onto the farmer's organic fields. Because these identify at least potential bases to recover damages, see Highview N. Apartments v. Cnty. Our conclusion that the district court properly dismissed the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. See, e.g., Martin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 221 Or. The certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of section 205.202(b) and the OFPA was the proximate cause of the Johnsons' injury, but the Johnsons cannot hold the Cooperative liable for the certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of the law. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. W. Page Keeton et al., Prosser & Keeton on the Law of Torts, 13, at 70 (5th ed.1984). A10-1596, A10-2135 (Minn. Aug. 1, 2012). Defendant was a company that sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the plaintiffs fields. (holding that Minnesota law "has not recognized trespass by particulate matter"); The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 1282 (4th ed. Although neither Wendinger nor other Minnesota cases have directly addressed the issue, the reasoning underlying decisions in similar neighbor-liability cases leads us to conclude that chemical pesticide drift can constitute a trespass. ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73. This formulation of trespass, however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass. A party may amend a responsive pleading that has been served if that party has leave of the court, and leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." The states may adopt the federal standards or they may impose more restrictive requirements governing products sold as organic. WebCase Brief (19,287) Case Opinion (19,683) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. "Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, shows that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." The district court consequently denied the Johnsons' request for permanent injunctive relief. The argument is persuasive. Defendants pesticide drifted and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields. In addition, the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects. Bad smell, we held, was a nuisance rather than a trespass because, although the essence of the intruding matter was technically a physical substance, it interferes with enjoyment and use of the property but not with its possession. We review the district court's denial of a party's motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. Because those rest on erroneous conclusions of law, the district court's reason for denying the injunction fails. Our first task is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) are organic farmers. 205.202(b) (2012). We granted the Cooperative's petition for review, and on appeal, the Cooperative argues that (1) the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law; (2) all of the Johnsons' claims fail as a matter of law because the Johnsons have not shown damages; (3) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint; and (4) the district court did not err when it denied the Johnsons a permanent injunction. I also dissent from the court's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. Ass'n. They asserted separately that some of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth. Id. Some particles are sufficiently large or dark to be observable, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke. United States Envtl. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. See Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523, 529 (Ala.1979) (Whether an invasion of a property interest is a trespass or a nuisance does not depend upon whether the intruding agent is tangible or intangible . Instead, an analysis must be made to determine the interest interfered with. 205 (2012) (NOP). The court of appeals reversed. The OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited substance residue on them may be marketed and sold as organic. The court of appeals reversed. 6511and the corresponding NOP regulation7 C.F.R. 7 U.S.C. See, e.g., Caraco Pharm. favorite this post Jan 16 Couch for sale $250 (wdc > Leesburg) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. See, e.g., Bradley, 709 P.2d at 786, 791 (holding that the 3year trespass statute of limitations applied rather than the 2year nuisance statute of limitations). 205.202(b) (2012) cover instances of pesticide drift, thereby, justifying certain of plaintiff organic farmers Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims for damages? Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. This Court evaluated the issue by discussing the nature and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to prevent the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. Oil Co., No. The MDA investigated and again cited the cooperative for illegally spraying, and the Johnsons again took the affected fields out of organic production for three years. P. 15.01. We therefore reverse the district court's dismissal of the Johnsons' claims, its denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims related to other incidents of chemical drift, and its order denying a permanent injunction, and we remand for further proceedings. A10-1596& A10-2135 State of Minnesota Supreme Court Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, vs. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND ADDENDUM Date of Filing of Court of Appeals Decision: July 25, 2011 Kevin F. Gray (#185516) Respondents, Appellant. New York - August 11, 2011 . And the OFPA and NOP would not need a provision allowing crops with minimum levels of pesticide on them (i.e., less than 5 percent) to be sold as organic because such crops would necessarily have been harvested from fields ineligible for organic production. . Borland, 369 So.2d at 529; accord Bradley, 709 P.2d at 791. Under the plain language of 7 C.F.R. - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. 561.01 (2010) (stating that a nuisance action "may be brought by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance"); Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189-91 (requiring damages for a negligence-per-se action). The defendant's liability for nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the defendants' actions with the harm to the plaintiff. Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 71. Whereas that distinction may have been logical at times when science was not as precise as it is now, that distinction is not sound today. In the alternative, the Cooperative argues that if section 205.202(b) is ambiguous, analysis of the relevant canons of construction confirms its interpretation. Trial court was correct in concluding that plaintiffstrespassclaim failed as a matter of law. For example, if someone causes harmful dust to enter a person's land and that dust settles on the person's land and interferes with the owner's possession of the land, it would seem that a trespass has occurred. 7 U.S.C. Under Minnesota trespass law, entry upon the land that interferes with the landowner's right to exclusive possession results in trespass whether that interference was reasonably foreseeable or whether it caused damages. Johnson again notified the MDA in 2008 about the cooperative's spraying in July and August. [h]ave had no prohibited substances . Rather than adopt a categorical conclusion that particulate matter can never cause a trespass, I conclude, as discussed above, that it may constitute a trespass under some circumstances. I disagree with the breadth of the court's holding. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (Minn. 2012). This statute has been held to require "harm" to the plaintiff and "wrongful conduct" by the defendant. Remanded. Despite the Johnsons' requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticide and herbicide on fields adjacent to theirs in a manner that violated Minnesota law, causing chemicals to land on the Johnsons' farm. The Johnsons argue that they had to remove certain fields from organic production for 3 years because pesticides were applied to those fields in violation of 7 C.F.R. One of these specific practices provides that in order to be sold as organic, the product must not be produced on land to which any prohibited substances, including synthetic chemicals, have been applied during the 3 years immediately preceding the harvest of the agricultural products. 7 U.S.C. The cooperative again oversprayed in 2007. We hold that pesticide drifting from one farm to another may in some circumstances constitute a trespass. Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1974). Prot. Please try again. 7 U.S.C. The court of appeals stated that its decision in Wendinger should not be read to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Id. The gist of the tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 50 at 95 (2000); see also Martin v. Smith, 214 Minn. 9, 12, 7 N.W.2d 481, 482 (1942) (The gist of the action of trespass is the breaking and entering of the plaintiff's close.). We therefore hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10. 541.05, subd. See 7 C.F.R. The district court inferred too much from the regulation. JOHNSON v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY Supreme Court of Minnesota. Oluf JOHNSON, et al., Respondents, v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY, Appellant. Nos. A101596, A102135. And we hold that the federal regulation that prohibits the sale of produce labeled organic if it is tainted with chemicals at levels greater than five percent of the EPA's specified limit does not, by reverse implication, automatically authorize the sale of organically labeled produce that does not fail that five-percent test. Regarding the Johnsons' negligence per se claim, we have recognized that negligence per se is a form of ordinary negligence that results from violation of a statute. Anderson, 693 N.W.2d at 189 (quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 (Minn.1981)). of Comm'rs, 713 N.W.2d 817, 828 n. 9 (Minn.2006) (noting that administrative regulations are governed by the same rules of construction that apply to statutes); cf. The district court initially issued a temporary injunction, but after dismissing the Johnsons' claims on the merits, it vacated that injunction and denied the Johnsons' request for a permanent injunction. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. While the district court, both parties, and the court of appeals characterize the dismissal as one based on a lack of prima facie evidence of damages, the Johnsons clearly made a prima facie showing of damages; they actually took their soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition period and lost the opportunity to market crops from that field as organic during that time period. American organic farming is regulated by the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. The district court dismissed the Johnsons' request for injunctive relief because it concluded that the Johnsons did not have a viable nuisance claim under 7 C.F.R. The district court adopted the interpretation of the NOP regulation that the Cooperative advances. The court of appeals also concluded that the district court erred in failing to separately analyze or discuss the Johnsons' claims that were not based on trespass or on 7 C.F.R. See Weston v. McWilliams Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2006). They asked the district court to enjoin the cooperative from spraying within one-half mile of their farm and for damages based on common-law theories of trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. It has also recognized that a landowner owes a general duty "to adjoining or nearby premises" and observed that the duty leads to "liability [being] regularly imposed in cases concerning pesticide spray that drifted and killed bees" on neighboring land. Lee & Barry A. Lindahl, 4 Modern Tort Law: Liability and Litigation 38:1 (2d ed. But to the extent that the amended complaint alleges claims for the 2008 incidents that are not based in trespass or on 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b) (2012). (Emphasis added). 6511(c)(2). 205.201(a) (2012) (The producer or handler must develop an organic production or handling system plan); 7 C.F.R. In Minnesota, a trespass is committed where a plaintiff has the right of possession to the land at issue and there is a wrongful and unlawful entry upon such possession by defendant. All Am. Oluf Johnson posted signs at the farm's perimeter indicating that it was chemical free, maintained a buffer zone between his organic fields and his chemical-using neighbors' farms, and implemented a detailed crop-rotation plan. The supreme court has explained that "the intentional throwing of [an object] upon [another's] property would constitute a trespass." 205.203(b) (2012) (The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility); 7 C.F.R. It reasoned, "[A]s there is no evidence that chemical residue tests performed on the plants . 205.203(a) (2012) (The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices); 7 C.F.R. Specifically, the court concluded that the Johnsons had no evidence of damages from any alleged drift because there is no evidence said drift caused [the Johnsons] to lose their organic certification and there is no evidence that [the Johnsons] could not still sell their crops as organic since the levels of prohibited substances were below the applicable tolerance levels. Based on this conclusion, the court granted the Cooperative summary judgment and dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. Only produce that meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic. 6511. The Johnsons also reported the alleged pesticide drift to their organic certifying agent, the Organic Crop Improvement Association (OCIA), as they were required to do under the NOP. WebPDF State of Minnesota Supreme Court 20-72 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _____ JANET L. HIMSEL, ET AL., Petitioners, v. 4/9 LIVESTOCK, LLC, ET AL., Respondents. And we reverse the denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint and of their request for a permanent injunction because both denials were based on the same mistaken legal conclusions. To guard against that result, the courts in both Bradley and Borland required that it be reasonably foreseeable that the intangible matter result in an invasion of plaintiff's possessory interest, and that the invasion caused substantial damages to the plaintiff's property. We compared the odors in Wendinger to the "noxious fumes" that were emanating from a wastewater plant in Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 n. 2 (Minn. App. The Johnsons seek loss of profits under both the nuisance and negligence per se claims based on their alleged inability to market their crops as organic under 7 C.F.R. The operative regulation here requires that "[a]ny field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as `organic' must . 561.01 (2010) provides that a nuisance is [a]nything which is injurious to health, or indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property. An action seeking an injunction or to recover damages can be brought under the statute by any person whose property is injuriously affected or whose personal enjoyment is lessened by the nuisance. Id. Oluf Johnson complained to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) after the 2002 overspray. 205.400(f)(1). Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006). 18B.07, subd. 802 N.W.2d at 391 (citing 7 C.F.R. St. Paul, MN 55101-2134 (651) 757-1468 PLST. Under the plain terms of section 205.671, therefore, crops can be sold as organic even if testing shows prohibited substances on those crops as long as the amounts detected do not exceed 5 percent of EPA limits. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion. 7 U.S.C. 295, 297 (1907) (bullets and fallen game). See, e.g., Anderson v. Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 192 (Minn.2005) (discussing our nuisance jurisprudence); Schmidt v. Vill. In terms of size, the largest inhalable coarse particles are 10 micrometers in diameter; that is one-seventh the diameter of a strand of human hair. 205.202(b), and (2) denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims for the 2008 incidents to the extent those claims are not based on trespass or 7 C.F.R. VI, 10. We add that the Johnsons alleged other damages not considered by the district court. 6511(c)(1). 369 So.2d at 52526. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). The Environmental Protection Agency defines particulate matter as a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. United States Envtl. The rule the Johnsons advocate, and that the court of appeals adopted, erodes this right because it imposes on the property owner the obligation to demonstrate that the invasion causes some consequence. 1998), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1998). 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law, we reverse the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. In a breach of contract case, the court can consider ordering specific performance as long as the innocent party asks for that remedy. Minn.Stat. The MDA investigator did not observe any plant injury, but chemical testing revealed a minimal amount of glyphosate in the Johnsons' transitional alfalfa. WebAssistant Attorneys General . See Borland, 369 So.2d at 527 (noting, the same conduct on the part of a defendant may, and often does, result in the actionable invasion of exclusive possession of the property and use and enjoyment). The cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons again contacted the MDA. The Johnsons urge us, however, to construe the phrase applied to it to include actions of third parties, such as the pesticide drift that resulted from the Cooperative's spraying activity at issue here. Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 . In summary, we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim, and nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. And they alleged that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops.

What Is The Best Thing To Feed Swans?, Is Susan Calman A Vegetarian, Articles J