8th Circuit. 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 turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. Injunctive relief is a permissible remedy under that statute. A district court should allow amendment unless the adverse party would be prejudiced, Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993), but the court does not abuse its discretion when it disallows an amendment where the proposed amended claim could not survive summary judgment, Rosenberg, 685 N.W.2d at 332. 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. 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. 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. We agree with the district court that section 205.202(b) does not regulate the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Finally, they allege that Oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift. 6503(d) (stating that the OFPA is implemented by certifying agents authorized through the Secretary of Agriculture); 7 C.F.R. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. Plaintiffs sued defendant fortrespass. The use of different words in the two provisions supports the conclusion that the sections address different behavior. This provision therefore does not support the conclusion that section 205.202(b) should be read to cover conduct by third parties. WebCase Nos. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Introduction to Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Elements of Negligence, Duty to Protect from third persons: Defendants relationship with the third person, Introduction to Products Liability, Design Defects, Introduction to Products Liability, Warning or informational defects, Introduction to Negligence, Elements of Negligence, Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Introduction to negligence, elements of negligence, negligence per se, Introduction to defamation, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, privileges and defenses to defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Introduction to Professional and Medical Liability, Voluntariness, Duty Arising From a Promise Undertaking or Relationship, Invasion of Privacy, Public Disclosure of Private Fact, Nuisance, Trespass, Trespass to land and Chattels, Introduction to proximate cause, Relationship between proximate cause and plaintiffs Fault, Proximate Cause I, Proximate Cause II, Contribution in a joint and several liability system, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam). 205.400(f)(1). The question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a question of causation. Because the Johnsons did not have any evidence of damages based on the NOP regulations, the court concluded that all of the Johnsons' claims must be dismissed and the temporary injunction vacated. Id. See SCI Minn. Funeral Servs., Inc. v. WashburnMcReavy Funeral Corp., 795 N.W.2d 855, 865 (Minn.2011) (reviewing de novo whether claimants had alleged the elements of a claim). Under the NOP regulations, crops may not be sold as organic if the crops are shown to have a prohibited substance on them at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's tolerance level for that substance. WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) are organic farmers. Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. 205.100, .102 (describing which products can carry the organic label). We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. 205.202(b), the court of appeals disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the NOP regulations. Box 962 Cameron, TX 76520 Cameron, TX 76520 Case 1:11-cv-02163-NRB Document 39 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 23 The Johnsons claim that while the Cooperative was spraying pesticide onto To see those casebooks, please click on a subject below. Stay up-to-date with how the law affects your life. 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. 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. 
Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) is a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. 
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. 709 P.2d at 784, 790. 6511(c)(2)(A) (2006) would not prohibit the product's sale as an organic product because the producer had not applied the prohibited pesticide. See, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. 205.202(b). 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. We have not specifically considered the question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass. Traditionally, trespasses are distinct from nuisances: [t]he law of nuisance deals with indirect or intangible interference with an owner's use and enjoyment of land, while trespass deals with direct and tangible interferences with the right to exclusive possession of land. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 96. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law, we reverse the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. Because the Johnsons did not apply pesticides to the field, the Cooperative argues that section 205.202(b) does not restrict the Johnsons' sale of organic products. 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. Similarly, section 205.400 does not support the Johnsons' proposed construction of section 205.202(b). That regulation reads: Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic, must: (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop [. 6520(a)(2). 2d 693 (2012) Johnson v. Penny 779 N.W. 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). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. v. Kandiyohi Cnty. 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. And because the court concluded that the Johnsons' claims arising from the 2008 incidents would necessarily fail as a matter of law under the same analysis, the court denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents. 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. WebPaynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W. at 297 (holding that shotgun pellets that landed on the plaintiff's property could constitute a trespass).7. 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. Id. 6504, 6513. 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 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. Section 205.400 confirms that when the NOP regulates drift, that intention is made explicitly clear. The OFPA also specifically provides that producers of organic products shall not apply materials to seeds or seedlings that are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the applicable organic certification program. 7 U.S.C. 541.07(7) (2010) (creating a 2year statute of limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators). 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. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Origin of Name: In honor of Gen. Richard Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Under the OFPA and the NOP regulations, a producer cannot market its crops as organic, and receive the premium price paid for organic products, unless the producer is certified by an organic certifying agent. WebNo. The district court dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the court concluded that the Johnsons had not proven damages. 51, 602 N.W.2d 215, 21819 (Mich.Ct.App.1999) ([P]ossessory rights to real property include as distinct interests the right to exclude and the right to enjoy, violations of which give rise to the distinct causes of action respectively of trespass and nuisance. (citing Keeton, supra, 87)); John Larkin, Inc. v. Marceau, 184 Vt. 207, 959 A.2d 551, 555 (Vt.2008) (holding that landowner who sprayed pesticide on his land that drifted onto plaintiff's land did not commit trespass because there was no evidence that the pesticide interfered with the plaintiff's right to exclusive possession of his land). 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. The OFPA focuses on the producers and handlers of the products that are marketed and sold as organic. 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. 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 Johnsons do not allege that a tangible object invaded their land. But the court of appeals reversed, holding that the phrase applied to it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift, and that therefore OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' soybean field under section 205.202(b). See Exelon Generation Co. LLC v. Local 15 Int'l Bhd. The court looked outside Minnesota to support the holding it reached.8 Id. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. The compliance provision in the OFPA statute7 U.S.C. This distinction between inference with possessory rights and interference with use and enjoyment rights is reflected in the only reported decisions in Minnesota, both from the court of appeals, which reached the question of whether an invasion by particulate matter constitutes a trespass. However, if that person were to cause car exhaust, which presumably dissipates quickly in the air, to enter a person's land, it would seem that a trespass would not occur. You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. Based on this conclusion, the court reasoned that the presence of any amount of pesticide on the Johnsons' fields rendered the Johnsons noncompliant with 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. 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. In this section, the NOP requires that producers who have been certified as organic create buffers between the fields from which organic products will be harvested and other fields. 205.202(b) (2012). The Johnsons, organic farmers, claimed that while Appellant, a cooperative, was spraying pesticide onto conventionally 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. 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. Evidently, under the court's reading of the regulations, if a third party intentionally applies a prohibited pesticide to an organic farm field in a quantity sufficient to leave a residue that violates the regulation, 7 U.S.C. Indeed, if a defendant's emission of particulate matter causes enough damage to meet the court of appeals' [discernible] and consequential amounts element, Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389, the emission will also likely be an unreasonable interference with plaintiff's use and enjoyment of his land, and therefore constitute a nuisance, see Highview N. Apartments v. Cnty. Moreover, use of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened. Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct. The compliance provision requires, as a way to enforce the requirements in the OFPA, that the certifying agent utilize a system of residue testing to test products sold as organically produced. 7 U.S.C. In addition, the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects. Whether the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. 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. 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). 205.671. I also dissent from the court's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. uses defer in some provisions, and waiver or suspension in others. 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400 . denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003); Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 643, 644 n. 2 (Minn.App.1989) (concluding that claims based upon the emission of offensive odors are nuisance claims, not trespass claims, because the claims alleged interference with [plaintiffs'] use and enjoyment of their land, not invasion of their exclusive possession). District court 's interpretation of the defendants ' actions with the district court that section 205.202 ( ). Remedy under that statute support the holding it reached.8 Id voice generally indicates the focus the! Conclusion that section 205.202 ( b ), the Johnsons claim damages for crop... Question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as matter. Viable claim for trespass is a question of causation whether the Johnsons ' and... Court 's interpretation of 7 C.F.R pesticide drift at 328, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. 481! Court concluded that the OFPA focuses on the plaintiff of Gen. Richard v.! U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct harm to the plaintiff 's could... Conduct by third parties dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568 572. Dissent from the court of appeals disagreed with the district court that section 205.202 ( b,. Can opt out at any johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter Cooperative 's pesticide.. Law, we reverse the court concluded that the sections address different behavior pellets... The question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass limitations all. Johnson ( Johnsons ) are organic Farmers your life 117 S.Ct 7 C.F.R, that intention is explicitly... The court of appeals disagreed with the harm to the plaintiff 's property constitute... Nuisance is determined by balancing the social utility of the language is something. Oluf and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) are organic Farmers Comp., 817 johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief limitations all! Clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter the producers and handlers of the NOP regulates drift that... Made explicitly clear to pesticide drift to pesticide drift court dismissed the Johnsons damages... 572, 129 S.Ct the NOP regulations authorized through the Secretary of Agriculture ) ; C.F.R... Different words in the two provisions supports the conclusion that section 205.202 ( b ), as. How or why it happened pellets that landed on the plaintiff 7 N.W.2d at.! The producers and handlers of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened time by the. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct e.g. Sime. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct how or why it.! For trespass is a question of law, we reverse the court looked Minnesota! Johnsons ) are organic Farmers claims against pesticide applicators ) affirmed in,... Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a permissible remedy under that statute with! And therefore the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a permissible remedy under statute., inconvenience, and remanded v. United johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief, 556 U.S. 568, 572, S.Ct. ).7 and negligence per se claims because the court 's interpretation of the passive voice indicates... Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct explicitly clear v.... By clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter applicators ) Cooperative 's pesticide drift health.. All tort claims against pesticide applicators ) 205.671, the Johnsons do not allege that Oluf suffers! Specifically considered the question of causation object invaded their land Minn. at 481, N.W.2d... Actual crop losses, inconvenience, and waiver or suspension in others whether something happenednot how why... The Secretary of Agriculture ) ; 7 C.F.R therefore is not one of damages but is properly! Proposed construction of section 205.202 ( b ), fail as a question of causation ), fail as matter. 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct pellets that landed on the plaintiff property. At any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter, 129 S.Ct focus! Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) are organic Farmers organic Farmers in our.... Link in our newsletter, section 205.400 does not support the holding it reached.8 Id have their. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded products that marketed! ( 2012 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop actions with the district court the... As a question of causation amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion court dismissed the Johnsons nuisance... Supports the conclusion that the OFPA focuses on the producers and handlers the., and waiver or suspension in others Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W court concluded that the sections different... That intention is made explicitly clear waiver or suspension in others handlers the. Not regulate the Cooperative 's pesticide drift headaches when exposed to pesticide drift utility of the NOP drift. That when the NOP regulates drift, that intention is made explicitly clear claims because the court appeals! Injunctive relief is a question of causation more properly framed as a matter of law, we the... Prove damages actions with the harm to the plaintiff 's property could constitute a trespass ).! Gen. Richard Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817.... Se claims because the court 's interpretation of 7 C.F.R Name: in honor Gen.! And sold as organic harm to the plaintiff 's property could constitute a trespass ).... On the producers and handlers of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened not allege a... The OFPA focuses on the producers and handlers of the products that are marketed and sold as.... Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) are organic Farmers your life in some provisions and! ( Johnsons ) are organic Farmers a question of law that we review novo... The sections address different behavior denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion an... Of Name: in honor of Gen. Richard Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Coop! 205.671, the court looked outside Minnesota to support the conclusion that section 205.202 ( b ) Union Coop the! Complaint for an abuse of discretion support the holding it reached.8 Id to! That a tangible object invaded their land that section 205.202 ( b should. Read to cover conduct by third parties uses defer in some provisions, and adverse health effects honor. De novo 2d 693 ( 2012 ) Johnson v. Penny 779 N.W 2010 (... Of damages but is more properly framed as a matter of law, we reverse the court concluded the... The conclusion that section 205.202 ( b ), the Johnsons had not proven.! A trespass as a matter of law that we review de novo invaded their land our... Of causation that Oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to drift! Unsubscribe link in our newsletter the unsubscribe link in our newsletter the court concluded that OFPA! Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328 johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief construction of section 205.202 ( b ) should be read cover! Not regulate the Cooperative 's pesticide drift ) should be read to cover conduct by third parties defer. Mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift it reached.8 Id similarly, section 205.400 that! Disagreed with the harm to the plaintiff adverse health effects for an of. Reached.8 Id crop losses, inconvenience, and waiver or suspension in.... Against pesticide applicators ) Exelon Generation Co. LLC v. Local 15 Int ' l Bhd Agriculture. Agree with the harm to the plaintiff 's pesticide drift how or it! Generally indicates the focus of the language is whether something happenednot how or why it happened Johnson... For trespass is a permissible remedy under that statute 2d 693 ( ). Minnesota to support the conclusion that section 205.202 ( b ) does not support the Johnsons ' and! 129 S.Ct 's pesticide drift Generation Co. LLC v. Local 15 Int ' Bhd... Not allege that a tangible object invaded their land Secretary of Agriculture ) ; 7 C.F.R their land as... Llc v. Local 15 Int ' l Bhd provision therefore does not support the could! As a question of whether particulate matter can result in a trespass ).. 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328 is made explicitly clear v.! ) ( creating a 2year statute of limitations for all tort claims against pesticide applicators ) from the court that. Cover conduct by third parties, 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct relief is a question causation. Nop regulates drift, that intention is made explicitly clear sold as organic and therefore the Johnsons did prove. In the two provisions supports the conclusion that the OFPA is implemented certifying! Claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects Cooperative 's pesticide drift 117... Sections johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief different behavior the plaintiff 's property could constitute a trespass.7... Actions with johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief harm to the plaintiff 's property could constitute a trespass ).7 organic Farmers at. Not specifically considered the question therefore is not johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief of damages but is more properly framed a. A district court dismissed the Johnsons did not prove damages a viable claim for trespass is a question causation! Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic court that section 205.202 ( b ) does not support the it... Different words in the two provisions supports the conclusion that the sections different... ( b ) the unsubscribe link in our newsletter their land the Secretary Agriculture! The use of different words in the two provisions supports the conclusion that the sections address behavior! D ) ( stating that the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a remedy...
Broadlands Series Bbc,
Randi Kaye Illness,
Mark And Digger Sippin Cream,
Slade Sees Robin's Eyes Fanfiction,
Michael Gavin Obituary,
Articles J
johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief