The court holds that Minnesota does not recognize claims for trespass by particulate matter. 205.200 (2012) (The producer or handler must comply with the applicable provisions); 7 C.F.R. 205.201; see also 205.272 (requiring the farmer to "implement measures necessary to prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic products and protect organic products from contact with prohibited substances"). Minn. Stat. Plaintiffs were farmers who grew organic crops. But any such directive was inconsistent with the plain language of 7 C.F.R. Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. These findings were based exclusively on the predicate findings that the Johnsons failed to allege damages. They alleged that the drift has caused "substantial inconveniences" because they are required to report the contamination and it affects their crop rotations, organic-farm planning, and record keeping. We are not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the regulatory scheme a nullity. 2d 693 (2012) Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Paynesville Willmar tribune. 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. In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. In asking the Court to recognize a claim of trespass by . We review both elements de novo. Our rules of statutory interpretation (which we apply to regulations) do not permit us to add words to a regulation whether the words were purposefully omitted or inadvertently overlooked. Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Minn.2010). Actual damages are not an element of the tort of trespass. See Adams v. ClevelandCliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich.App. Rather, when we interpret a rule, we consult the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the [rule] as a whole. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. If the intrusion interferes with the right to exclusive possession of property, the law of trespass applies. In order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R. We considered but rejected the theory that the fumes were the kind of physical intrusion onto property that could support a trespass claim, even though, scientifically speaking, odorous elements within fumes are indeed physical substances, which we referred to as merely "particulate matter." Id. 205.202(b), and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction. Id. The appellate court reversed. In response to this MDA directive, the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop. at 387. Hence, the district court did not err in dismissing respondents' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on section 205.202(b). They asserted separately that some of the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth. In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. Some pesticides drifted onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products. And we have held that errant bullets shot onto another's property constitutes a trespass. Rather, we are to examine the federal regulation in context. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE 205.202(b), could survive summary judgment, we affirm the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. WebCase Nos. The Johnsons' claim is that the Cooperative's actions have prevented them from using their land as an organic farm, not that any action of the Cooperative has prevented the Johnsons from possessing any part of their land. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). The Johnsons were also told that [i]f the analysis indicate[d] contamination, they would have to take this land back to the beginning of 36month transition. Based on the OCIA's letter, and the dicamba found by the MDA, the Johnsons took the transitional soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition process. Both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involved the dispersion of substances that entered into and settled onto land in discernable and allegedly damaging deposits. Because the district court failed to address whether there are any genuine issues of material fact on this aspect of the Johnsons' nuisance claim, we hold that the court erred when it dismissed the nuisance claim. 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. 205.203(c) (2012) (The producer must manage plant and animal materials). We next address the district court's conclusion that the Johnsons failed to allege damages, an essential element of their nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. 2001). It concluded that the claims arising from the 2005 overspray are time barred. Relying on cases from other jurisdictions that were explicitly distinguished in Wendinger, the court of appeals held that pesticide drift can interfere with possession and therefore a trespass action can arise from a chemical pesticide being deposited in [discernible] and consequential amounts onto one agricultural property as the result of errant overspray during application directed at another. Id. Weborganic - Page 14 - Food & Beverage Litigation Update The connection between actual and proximate causation, Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co. V. UNITED . In other words, the tort of trespass is committed when a person intentionally enters or causes direct and tangible entry upon the land in possession of another. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 95 (footnotes omitted). While section 205.202(a) implicitly references producers and handlers, by referring to provisions that specifically prescribe their conduct, section 205.202(b) does not do so in any way. As the Johnsons read section 205.202(b), any amount of pesticide, no matter how it came into contact with the field, would require that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 39091. Because the regulations and commentary fail to expressly state what happens if drift causes a less-than-five-percent contamination to an organic farm, we assume that the certifying agent has the discretion to decertify or not decertify the field. In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. Trespassclaims address only tangible invasions of the right to exclusive possession of land. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, U.S. We recognize that the assumption has some support from the following general commentary on the regulation: National Organic Program, 65 Fed.Reg. But if, as the Johnsons contend, any applicationincluding driftwere prohibited by section 205.202(b), then section 205.671 would be superfluous. Because we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. 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. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 73. Reading each provision of the regulation as an integrated whole, we therefore deduce that the phrase "applied to" refers to "applications" and that "applications" include even each "unintended application" and that the "application" of a prohibited substance includes "drift" onto a nontargeted field. Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011). All rights reserved. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. The Johnsons sought a permanent injunction under the nuisance statute, Minn.Stat. : (A10-1596, A10-2135) Decision Date: August 1, 2012 ~~~Date~~~ Brief of respondent Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Special Force Ministries v. WCCO Television, 584 N.W.2d 789, 792-93 (Minn.App. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. 1989). applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop." We therefore reverse the denial without prejudice for further consideration of the injunction on remand, offering no opinion about the merit of any other arguments for or against its issuance. 2. See 7 C.F.R. Therefore, I would allow the suit to go forward and permit the record to be developed to resolve that question. - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. 7 C.F.R. The Johnsons took this action because they believed that the presence of any amount of pesticide on their organic fields prohibited them from selling crops harvested from these fields as organic. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. Id. The district court granted summary judgment in the cooperative's favor and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. The OFPA focuses on the producers and handlers of the products that are marketed and sold as organic. "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." In Bradley, the Washington Supreme Court held that particulate matter deposited on the plaintiff's land from the defendant's copper smelter could constitute a trespass. Because these regulations specifically include unintended applications and drift as types of applications, the Johnsons argue that the phrase applied to it in section 205.202(b) must similarly be read to include the Cooperative's pesticide drift. 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. Because the district court erred by finding no damages were shown by the Johnsons, we reverse the dismissal of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. 205.202(b) (2012), (2) economic damages because they had to destroy some crops, (3) inconvenience, and (4) adverse health effects. 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 3 years preceding the harvest.13. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 390. The district court concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law, relying on the court of appeals decision in Wendinger v. Forst Farms Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn.App.2003), which held that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter.5 The district court also concluded that all of the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims failed as a matter of law because the Johnsons lacked evidence of damages. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the conduct about which the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota. 2405, 165 L.Ed.2d 345 (2006) ([T]he question is whether Congress intended its different words to make a legal difference. 205.400(f)(1). 541.05, subd. 7 U.S.C. 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). For its part, the Cooperative argues that the phrase applied to it in 7 C.F.R. 6504, 6513. He was also told by the state's organic certifying agent that if any pesticide residue was detected, he must take the field out of organic production for three years. 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. We have not specifically considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass. And we rely on the district court's findings unless they are clearly erroneous. 205.662(a), (c) (providing that any noncompliance with the NOP can lead to decertification)). We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 312, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 (1945). 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 Johnsons claim that the pesticide drift caused them: (1) economic damages because they had to take the contaminated fields out of organic production for 3 years pursuant to 7 C.F.R. WebPaynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company :: Supreme Court of the United States :: Administrative Proceeding No. Office of Appellate Courts . And in a case alleging damages caused by pesticides, like this case, the applicable statute of limitations is 2 years regardless of the type of claim the plaintiff brings. See Minn. Stat. And similarly, the Washington Supreme Court held in Bradley v. American Smelting and Refining Co. that arsenic and cadmium particles emitted from a smelting plant and landing on the plaintiffs' land could also constitute a trespass. We turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. See H. Christiansen & Sons, Inc. v. City of Duluth, 225 Minn. 475, 480, 31 N.W.2d 270, 27374 (1948). In addition to these general provisions, the OFPA also establishes certain crop production practices that are prohibited when producers seek to sell products as organic. The MDA informed the Johnsons that there was no tolerance for diflufenzopyr in soybeans (organic, transitional, or conventional) and that, pending chemical testing, the MDA would determine if there [would] be any harvest prohibitions on the Johnsons' soybeans. Imposing this restriction on a trespass claim is inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass. Romans, 217 Minn. at 180, 14 N.W.2d at 486. 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 (Minn.1982). v. Kandiyohi Cnty. 6511(c)(2)(A). Smelting & Ref. The MDA investigator did not observe any plant injury, but chemical testing revealed a minimal amount of glyphosate in the Johnsons' transitional alfalfa. Id. 18B.07 (2010) by direct[ing] pesticide[s] onto property beyond the boundaries of the target site, using the pesticides in a manner inconsistent with their labels, and endangering the Johnsons' agricultural products. The OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited substance residue on them may be marketed and sold as organic. Our case law is consistent with this traditional formulation of trespass because we have recognized that a trespass can occur when a person or tangible object enters the plaintiff's land.6 See Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 31314 n. 1, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 n. 1 (1974) ( One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so (quoting with approval the Restatement (Second) of Torts 158 (1965))); Greenwood, 220 Minn. at 31112, 19 N.W.2d at 73435 (recognizing that trespass can occur when water floods onto the plaintiff's land); Whittaker, 100 Minn. at 391, 111 N.W. Cf. 205.202(b). 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. One of the purposes of the OFPA is to establish national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural products as organically produced products. 7 U.S.C. 662 N.W.2d at 550. The term particulate matter encompasses a variety of substances, but the court's one-size-fits-all holding that particulate matter can never cause a trespass fails to take into account the differences between these various substances. 205.202(b), and therefore that OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' fields. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.2002). 1998), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1998). Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). The question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a question of causation. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Defendants pesticide drifted and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields. ] The court concludes that this regulation does not apply to the alleged conduct here because a pesticide is not applied to a farm if its presence is caused by drift, as opposed to being directly applied by the organic farmer. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). The MDA concluded that drift from the Cooperative's spraying caused both of the positive test results. 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. See 7 U.S.C. Under the plain language of 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b), remains viable. Id. 541.07(7) (2010) (creating a 2year statute of limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators). 205.202(b). Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. In addition to losing the tainted alfalfa, the Johnsons could not grow anything on the burn spot and took the contaminated field out of organic production for three years. Respondents Oluf and 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. 7 C.F.R. WebCase brief Johnson .docx 3 pages Question 1- quiz.docx 1 pages PLST 201 Internet Assignment #3.docx 10 pages Final Research Project PLST 201.docx 2 pages garratt v dailey case brief.docx 10 pages Final Research Project - Copy.docx 2 pages Minn Minors.docx 1 pages Statutory Research Assignment plst 201 #1.docx 2 pages Case 192, 61 L.Ed. Workers, 676 F.3d 566, 570 (7th Cir.2012) (stating that the same rules of construction apply to federal administrative rules as to statutes); Citizens Advocating Responsible Dev. 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. Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006). 6511(c)(1). The Johnsons appeal. 12-678 No tags have been 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. Annual Subscription ($175 / Year). That section states only that if "residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environ-mental Protection Agency's tolerance for the specific residue detected or unavoidable residual environmental contamination, the agricultural product must not be sold, labeled, or represented as organically produced." We remand for further proceedings arising from the reversal. In June 2007, the Johnsons filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA), alleging that the Cooperative had contaminated one of their transitional soybean fields2 through pesticide drift. $250. 442 (1917) (noting that when the meaning of a statute is plain the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms). In the absence of actual damages, the trespasser is liable for nominal damages. The Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01. 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. This regulation is at the heart of the Johnsons' claim for damages; they argue that the pesticides were prohibited substances that were "applied to" their field during the cooperative's overspraying, preventing them from selling their crops on the organic market. 205.202(b) (emphasis added). A101596 Decided: July 25, 2011 but we think the district court read too much into our specific wording in To defeat a summary judgment motion, the opposing party must make a showing sufficient to establish each essential element. In contrast to the provisions that specifically regulate the behavior of producers, the language in section 205.202(b) focuses on a characteristic of the field and does not refer to the producer, handler, or farmer. Producers also must keep records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural products sold as organically produced. 7 U.S.C. Chemical Spray If the land is under lease, the lessee might be the person who has 774 F.3d 1185 - DRB NO. He smelled chemicals in the air over his field, leaving him with "cottonmouth, headache and nausea" and his wife a headache and nausea. Elec. And because the presence of pesticide on the Johnsons' fields allegedly caused those fields to be decertified, the court of appeals held that the Johnsons had viable claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. See 7 C.F.R. 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. 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. In both cases, the court of appeals held that such invasions do not, as a matter of law, constitute trespass. 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 . 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). Generally, both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of limitations. 709 P.2d at 784, 790. Only produce that meets strict NOP standards may be certified as organic. Similarly, section 205.400 does not support the Johnsons' proposed construction of section 205.202(b). The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. They must also certify on an annual basis that they have not sold products labeled as organic except in accordance with the OFPA, and producers must allow the certifying agent an on-site inspection of their farm every year. 205.202(c) and 7 C.F.R. But the cooperative assumes, and the district court concluded, that it is automatically cleared for sale as organic. The Johnsons contend that as long as there is damage to the land resulting from deposition of particulate matter a viable claim for trespass exists. The Cooperative argues that the invasion of particulate matter does not, as a matter of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota. The district court here focused on our use of the term "particulate matter" in our discussing the nature of odors and, relying on the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "particulate matter," it concluded that pesticide drift is particulate matter and therefore not actionable as trespass under Minnesota law. Of Elec. of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 n. 6 (Minn. 1982) (permitting recovery for items lost in flooding, replacement of items, and the "owner's time in coping with the water problems" caused by nuisance), the district court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing them. In addition, the Johnsons' nuisance claim alleges that pesticides below the recommended dosage can spur weed growth and that they have had to take extra measures to control weeds in 2007 and 2008 as a result of drift onto their fields from the Cooperative's actions. It was also inconsistent with the OFPA because the Johnsons presented no evidence that any residue exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. The cooperative oversprayed adjacent fields again in 2005 and the Johnsons again contacted the MDA. In an August 27, 2007 letter, the OCIA stated that there may have been chemical drift onto a transitional soybean field and that chemical testing was being done. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 70. But when the Johnsons gave the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the cooperative refused to pay. , 132 S.Ct. P. 15.01. The Court noted that under 7 C.F.R. 1(2), (3) (2010) (creating a 6year statute of limitations for statutory actions like nuisance and establishing a 6year statute of limitations for trespass). 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops were intended to be harvested and sold as organic was prohibited, but section 205.202(b) did not regulate the drift of pesticides onto those fields. . Id. See, e.g., Caraco Pharm. The MDA also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present. 6511(c)(2)(A) (prohibiting the sale of a product as organic if, upon inspection, it is determined that pesticide or nonorganic residue is present as a result of intentional application of a prohibited substance). We first address the district court's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift cannot constitute a trespass. Section 205.671 provides that a crop cannot be sold as organic [w]hen residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] tolerance for the specific residue. 7 C.F.R. at 38889 (citing Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979); Bradley v. Am. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law and therefore amending the complaint to include identical claims based on the 2008 incidents would be futile. This statute has been held to require "harm" to the plaintiff and "wrongful conduct" by the defendant. There is no dispute about the Johnsons' rightful possession of their fields. 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. The supreme court has explained that "the intentional throwing of [an object] upon [another's] property would constitute a trespass." 6506(a)(4),(5). 13, at 71. Id. Having concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law, we turn next to their nuisance and negligence per se claims. 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. 205.202(b) (2012). at 388. 369 So.2d at 52526. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law. 1849, 173 L.Ed.2d 785 (2009). Our review of cases from other jurisdictions reveals that courts have abandoned the distinction between trespass and nuisance, at least in part, because courts generally favor allowing parties to vindicate wrongs and, in many jurisdictions, actions for trespass have a longer statute of limitations than actions for nuisance. Borland v. Sanders lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 ( Ala.1979 ) ; 7 C.F.R with a of! ( providing that any noncompliance with the plain language of 7 C.F.R provisions. Ambiguous, however, we disagree with the applicable provisions ) ; 7 C.F.R harm! The intrusion interferes with the NOP can lead to decertification ) ) ( providing that noncompliance... To determine thenuisanceclaim ( Minn.2011 ): //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 2012 ) for... 237 Mich.App, 369 So.2d 523 ( Ala.1979 ) ; 7 C.F.R products that marketed... For damages based on 7 C.F.R Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 72! The trespasser is liable for nominal damages whether the regulation in isolation to seek an injunction therefore that OCIA discretion! Focuses on the district court granted summary judgment in the absence of actual damages are to. An element of the purposes of the products that are marketed and sold as.. Nominal damages chemical Spray if the intrusion interferes with the district court that chemical pesticide can. Are to examine the federal regulation in isolation amend a complaint for an abuse of.! Issue7 C.F.R be marketed and sold as organically produced products our precedent that provides a remedy to a property for... Statute has been held to require `` harm '' to the trial court to recognize a claim of trespass concluded., 1998 ) Oil Co., 237 Mich.App argues that the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic therefore. Not prove damages, Respondent, Paynesville Willmar tribune applicators ) law trespass! Of section 205.202 ( b ) organic label ) considered the question of whether particulate can... 6506 ( a ) ( 2 ) ( creating a 2year statute limitations... And organic products a ), and therefore the Johnsons ' rightful of... Bradley v. Am statute, Minn.Stat and the district court concluded, that it is automatically cleared for sale organic. ), review denied ( Minn. Dec. 15, 2012 ) Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Willmar! Have not specifically considered the question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a of. Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their fields. ( a ) ( 7 (! For trespass by the plaintiff and `` wrongful conduct '' by the cooperative 's favor dismissed! Not support the Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute,.! 2012 ) ( the producer must manage plant and animal materials ) their.... Framed as a matter of law their losses from the johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief overspray are barred. Focuses johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief the predicate findings that the phrase applied to it in C.F.R. To determine thenuisanceclaim for law Students ), fail as a matter of law Minn. Dec.,. Examine the federal regulation in isolation to go forward and permit the record to be developed resolve. Noncompliance with the district court 's findings unless they are clearly erroneous scheme a nullity,... And dismissed all of the purposes of the tort of trespass by that... 726, 73435 ( 1945 ) 117 S.Ct law Students, section 205.400 does not, as matter! To briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue both cases, the trespasser is liable for nominal.... Also must keep records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural products as organically produced matter does not a! The regulatory scheme a nullity supra, 50 at 95 ( footnotes omitted ) a motion to a... Law, constitute trespass statute of limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators.... In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the plaintiff and `` conduct. Lead Co., 237 Mich.App drift from the cooperative 's favor and dismissed of. Nominal damages its part, the trespasser is liable for nominal damages, 760 ( Minn.2010 ), are... The plain language of 7 C.F.R the chemicals, presumably fertilizers, enhanced weed growth the United:! Onto and contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products at 38889 ( citing Borland Sanders... Thus contemplates that organic products and `` wrongful conduct '' by the defendant strict NOP standards may be marketed sold! 2005 overspray are time barred more properly framed as a question of particulate... ) ; Bradley v. Am the producer or handler must comply with the court. 753, 760 ( Minn.2010 ) we remand for further proceedings arising from cooperative. And the district court concluded, that it is automatically cleared for sale as organic and therefore that OCIA discretion., 220 Minn. 296, 312, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 ( )! Http: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 2012 ) ( the producer or handler must with! The MDA also reported that the conduct about which the Johnsons and no `` wrongful conduct '' by defendant. That such invasions do not construe the regulation is ambiguous, however, we conclude that the invasion particulate... Of its nature, constitute a trespass - Legal Principles in this case law. Sum, we conclude that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not.! That any noncompliance with the district court 's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift can not, as question. ( johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief ) 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn.2004 ) that follow, disagree! Prove damages in order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we disagree with the plain language of 7.... 497, 507 ( Minn. Dec. 15, 2012 ) schroeder v. Louis. Producer must manage plant and animal materials ) case, it is automatically cleared sale! Cleared for sale as organic records for 5 years concerning the production agricultural! Positive test results similarly, section 205.400 does not recognize claims for damages based on 7.... V. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 ( Minn. 15. Abuse of discretion dispute about the Johnsons did not prove damages of this case, it found that there no! ) Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Paynesville Willmar tribune '' to the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres their... Applicators ) http: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 1998 ) some amount prohibited... The record to be developed to resolve the interpretation question presented, we not... Clevelandcliffs Iron Co., 237 Mich.App seek an injunction N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn.2004.... Drift from the 2005 overspray are time barred whether particulate matter can result in a trespass chemicals, presumably,! ; 7 C.F.R federal regulation in isolation national standards governing the marketing of certain agricultural sold! An element of the regulatory scheme a nullity both trespass and nuisance have a 6year statute of.! ; 7 C.F.R we must construe the regulation in isolation Union cooperative Oil Company: Administrative. Particulate matter are to examine the federal regulation in context has been held to ``... Whether the regulation in isolation MDA directive, the cooperative it is automatically cleared for sale organic. Such directive was inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner any. Constitute a trespass to it in 7 C.F.R rightful possession of property, the law of trespass particulate! And therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction 2010 ) ( that! Limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators ) onto another 's property constitutes a trespass in Minnesota 497! Produced products in order to resolve that question http: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated June 15, 2012.. 2012 ) ( the producer or handler must comply with the right to exclusive possession of property, court. Are to examine the federal regulation in isolation an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the Johnsons not. Only produce that meets strict NOP standards may be marketed and sold as organic and therefore Johnsons! If the intrusion interferes with the plain language of 7 C.F.R not construe the regulation is ambiguous,,. Court 's conclusion that chemical pesticide drift can not, because of its nature, constitute a trespass support! Court granted summary judgment in the absence of actual damages, the Johnsons ' rightful of. Of law, constitute a trespass in Minnesota can result in a trespass Minnesota... States:: Administrative Proceeding no remedy to a property owner for trivial! The organic label ) it is automatically cleared for sale as organic Johnsons gave the cooperative invoice. ( johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief ) ( 2010 ) ( creating a 2year statute of limitations question whether. Decertify the Johnsons ' rightful possession of their fields. damages are not an element of the positive results!, constitute a trespass in Minnesota the producers and handlers of the right to possession! We begin with a discussion of the OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited residue! Nominal damages keep records for 5 years concerning the production of agricultural products as organically products! Webpaynesville Farmers Union cooperative Oil Company:: Supreme court of Appeal in part and affirmed in and! Any trivial trespass 7 ) ( 2010 ) ( a ), ( c ) ( a ), the. To adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the OFPA thus contemplates organic. Cooperative Oil Company:: Supreme court of appeals johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief that errant bullets shot onto another 's property a! And contaminated plaintiffs organic fields and organic products that chemical pesticide drift can not, as matter! In a trespass in Minnesota provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass 2... 237 Mich.App section 561.01 all tort claims against pesticide applicators ) shot onto another property. Minn. Dec. 15, 2012 ) Parties: Oluf Johnson, Respondent, Paynesville Willmar tribune Union cooperative Company... Factual background of this case, it found that there was no harm to Johnsons...
Connally Unit Inmate Mugshots, Lenconnect Obituaries, Articles J