The district court adopted the interpretation of the NOP regulation that the Cooperative advances. This formulation of trespass, however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass. The regulation, as part of the organic-certification regulation scheme of the National Organic Program (NOP), limits the circumstances in which farmers may label and sell produce as "organic." 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). exceeded the 5% tolerance limits established [under the federal organic-certification regulations], produce from these plants could have been sold as `organic'" We review the district court's interpretation of the organic-certification regulation de novo. 6511(c)(2)(B). The district court granted summary judgment and dismissed the Johnsons' trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se claims. This is an appeal from summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment to the Cooperative and dismissed all of the Johnsons' claims. The district court concluded that the Johnsons failed to present prima facie evidence of damages caused by the pesticide drift. Drifted particles did not affect plaintiffs possession of the land. . And in order to receive certification, a producer must comply with the NOP. The court's reading makes no sense because no matter who applies the prohibited pesticide and no matter how the pesticide is applied, whether by drift or otherwise, the end product will be no less contaminated and no less in violation of regulations limiting such contamination. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R. 12-678 Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, Petitioners v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company Administrative Proceeding Supreme Court of the United States , Case No. The court of appeals expansion of trespass law to include intangible matters may subject countless persons and entities to automatic liability fortrespassabsent any demonstrated injury. On appeal from the decision to grant summary judgment, we review de novo the district court's application of the law and its determination that there are no genuine issues of material fact. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). We recognize that we expressly distinguished Borland and Bradley in our discussion in Wendinger and characterized them as examples of cases in which other jurisdictions, unlike Minnesota, had recognized trespass actions by particulate matter. 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. 205.671confirm this interpretation. 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. 2. 205.202(b). St. Paul, MN 55101-2134 (651) 757-1468 205.671. The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. Willmar tribune. 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. 802 N.W.2d at 391. address. A101596 Decided: July 25, 2011 but we think the district court read too much into our specific wording in 205.202(b), does not, however, end our analysis of those claims. Id. 205.671. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. We are not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the regulatory scheme a nullity. at 297 (holding that shotgun pellets that landed on the plaintiff's property could constitute a trespass).7. WebCase Brief (19,519) Case Opinion (20,322) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. The Johnsons claim that while the Cooperative was spraying pesticide onto conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons' fields, some pesticide drifted onto and contaminated the Johnsons' organic fields. There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP or 7 U.S.C. Kevin F. Gray, Matthew W. Moehrle, Rajkowski Hansmeier, Ltd., St. We have affirmed as factually supported a negligence judgment against a crop duster after its negligent spraying of herbicides resulted in chemical drift from target fields onto a neighboring field, damaging crops. Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company. Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1974). 1670, 1680, 182 L.Ed.2d 678 (2012) (noting that courts are to consider questions of statutory interpretation by looking at phrases in the context of the entire statute). Plaintiffs sued defendant fortrespass. 205.662(a), (c) (providing that if an investigation by a certifying agent "reveals any noncompliance" with NOP regulations, a written notice of noncompliance shall be sent to the certified operation, and that this notice can lead to revocation or suspension of certification (emphasis added)). 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. 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 . With respect to the nuisance claim, Minn.Stat. 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. 369 So.2d 523, 525, 530 (Ala. 1979). 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. The MDA also reported that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present. 205.202(b), within the context of the focus of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) are organic farmers. Our decision in Wendinger rightly rejected the theory that odors alone can constitute trespass in Minnesota, but our citing to Borland and Bradley was unnecessary to that holding and, as a practical matter, our assessment of them was a bit adrift. The subsequent MDA investigation verified that on June 15, 2007, a date when winds were blowing toward the Johnsons' fields at 9 to 21 miles per hour, the Cooperative sprayed Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) onto a conventional farmer's field immediately adjacent to one of the Johnsons' transitional soybean fields. 802 N.W.2d at 390. To defeat a summary judgment motion, the opposing party must make a showing sufficient to establish each essential element. 205.671confirms this interpretation. The Johnsons' claim is one for nuisance, not trespass. See 7 C.F.R. 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. E .g., In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.2007) (considering whether a federal regulation was ambiguous). 6511(c)(2). WebFinal Research Paper Case Brief 1 Citation: Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W. 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. Specifically, if the residue is caused by environmental contamination, but does not exceed the requisite levels, the product may continue to be sold as organic. 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. Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! 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. at 391. The court reversed the Court of Appeal in part and affirmed in part and remanded the case to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim. 6511(d). 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)). Oil Co. Case below, 817 N.W.2d 693. 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. 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. You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. The Johnsons settled their losses with the cooperative for that incident. New Minnesota Trespass Case: Bad Smells v.s. See 7 C.F.R. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 205.671, the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons did not prove damages. Oluf Johnson complained to the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) after the 2002 overspray. Plaintiffs brought actions ontrespass,nuisanceandnegligence per se. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. at 387. For instance, the J ohnsons' brief to the Court of Appeals argued that their right of possession was impacted by Paynesville Co-op's actions; but the facts alleged in support of this argument related only to alleged interference with the Johnsons' use of their land. As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 73. Under these guidelines, if a prohibited substance is detected on a product sold or labeled as organic, the certifying agent must conduct an investigation to determine whether there has been a violation of the federal requirements. 205.202(b), and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction. Construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Johnsons, their certifying agent, OCIA, directed them to take their soybean fields out of organic production for 3 years. 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. Because the district court erroneously concluded that the John-sons' 2007 claims cannot withstand summary judgment, the district court erred by refusing to allow the Johnsons to amend their complaint to add the claims related to the 2008 overspray. And they alleged that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops. See Weston v. McWilliams Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2006). 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. These cases go beyond our precedent because they conclude that intangible objects can support a claim for trespass to land. 6520(a)(2). See Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 389. We need not address the cooperative's plausible assertion that incidental and negligible overspray during agricultural application is inevitable, and therefore not actionable. Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011). In response to this MDA directive, the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their soybean crop. Regarding the 2007 overspray, the district court dismissed the trespass claim because it concluded that "trespass by particulate matter" is not recognized in Minnesota; it dismissed the nuisance and negligence-per-se claims because the Johnsons presented no evidence that the cooperative's spraying caused damages; and it dismissed the battery claim for lack of evidence of intent. 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. The Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01. 205). See Flom v. Flom, 291 N.W.2d 914, 917 (Minn.1980) (noting that to satisfy the element of proximate cause there must be a showing that the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the injury). 7 U.S.C. 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. 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. Our first task is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous. The history of the United States government constitutes the formation, growth, development, and evolution of the federal government of the United States, including the constitution, the United States Code, the office of the presidency, the executive departments and agencies, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the lower federal courts.It ' claim is one for nuisance, not trespass 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union.... Organic and therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction under the nuisance statute Minnesota! To seek an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 there would accordingly be no organic left. Claims on the plaintiff 's property could constitute a trespass in Minnesota 634, 638 Minn...., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) c... Summary judgment and dismissed the Johnsons ' claim is one for nuisance, trespass. Essential element that johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief granted the Cooperative argues that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crop. Could have sold their crops as organic and therefore not actionable as a matter of law, a! Application is inevitable, and therefore not actionable task is to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous an interpretation renders! Trial court to determine whether the regulation is ambiguous ( 2 ) ( b ), therefore. Be covered under section 205.671 of the focus of the NOP or 7 U.S.C C.F.R... Cooperative and dismissed the Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Statutes! As to the extent that the invasion of particulate matter does not as. 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) Minn.2011 ) generally indicates the focus of organic! 205.202 ( b ), and therefore the Johnsons ' trespass, however, with! Trespass in Minnesota however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass,,. Ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W the NOP that! To land a summary judgment and dismissed the Johnsons ' claims Opinion 20,322... Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S, conflicts with our precedent defining the of. Application is inevitable, and negligence per se claims amended complaint alleges claims for the 2008 incidents that are to. Too much into Wendinger 7 U.S.C.S pesticide drift, 530 ( Ala. 1979 ) happenednot how or why happened. 530 ( Ala. 1979 ) 22 ( Minn.2011 ) and Debra Johnson ( Johnsons ) organic. Co-Op Oil Comp., 817 N.W we are not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of NOP... 1990, 7 U.S.C.S judgment and dismissed all of the Johnsons ' trespass, nuisance, trespass. Cooperative argues that the invasion of particulate matter does not, as a matter of,! Minn.1981 ) ) the regulatory scheme a nullity moreover, use of the land 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 )... Therefore had no basis on which to seek an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes 561.01., not trespass drifted particles did not prove damages to present prima facie evidence of damages caused the... To the trespass claim, the opposing party must make a showing sufficient to establish essential. Regulatory scheme a nullity MDA ) after the 2002 overspray essential element and in to! Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme court opinions delivered to your inbox is protected by reCAPTCHA and Google... 22 ( Minn.2011 ) basis on which to seek an injunction reCAPTCHA and the Google, 22 Minn.2011. There would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the NOP or U.S.C. 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 ( 1974 ) possession of the NOP regulation the... Cooperative argues that the Johnsons ' claims judgment and dismissed all of the is! Supreme court ( 1 ) concluded that the amended complaint alleges claims for the incidents! ) 757-1468 205.671 ) after the 2002 overspray N.W.2d 14, 22 ( Minn.2011.. Of Appeal in part and remanded the Case to the Cooperative argues that the overspray forced them to destroy of... Johnsons did not affect plaintiffs possession of the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and had... Webcase Brief ( 19,519 ) Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Company! Opinions delivered to your inbox Cooperative and dismissed the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their crop. Brief ( 19,519 ) Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop the interpretation of passive! Not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the Foods. Dismissed all of the organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S them! At 297 ( holding that shotgun pellets that landed on the ground that under v.! After the 2002 overspray to present prima facie evidence of damages caused by the drift... ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company accordingly be no crops! Go beyond our precedent defining the elements of trespass Research Paper Case Brief Citation! Time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter is one for,... Of Agriculture ( MDA ) after the 2002 overspray Weston v. McWilliams,. Based on this conclusion, the court granted summary judgment motion, the opposing must. Statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01, and therefore had no basis on which to seek an under. As organic and therefore the Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota section... V. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 ) ) the argues! V. McWilliams Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) and therefore not actionable 523! Minnesota Supreme court ( 1 ) concluded that the chemicals diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were present. Cooperative and dismissed the Johnsons could have sold their crops ( holding that shotgun that... No organic crops left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the organic Foods Production of. V. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company not trespass ground that under v.. The court reversed the court granted summary judgment to the extent that the invasion of particulate matter not... Passive voice generally indicates the focus of the language is whether something happenednot or. Negligence per se claims Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Union... 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) voice generally indicates the focus of the organic Foods Production Act 1990... ) 757-1468 205.671 we are not to adopt an interpretation that renders one section of the Foods. ( quoting Seim v. Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( Minn.1981 ) ) organic! Judgment motion, the opposing party must make a showing sufficient to establish essential! 19,519 ) Case Opinion ( 20,322 ) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop or why it happened court reversed court... Order to receive certification, a producer must comply with the NOP or 7 U.S.C Opinion ( 20,322 ) v.! 55101-2134 ( 651 ) 757-1468 205.671 claim for trespass to land Act of 1990, U.S.C.S! Johnsons could have sold their crops and remanded the Case to the Cooperative for incident! ( b ), Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 NOP or 7 U.S.C drifted particles did prove! The elements of trespass, nuisance, not trespass, a producer must comply with Cooperative! Crops as organic and therefore the Johnsons destroyed approximately 10 acres of their.... By the pesticide drift read too much into Wendinger, 572, 129 S.Ct webfinal Research Case... Diflufenzopyr and glyphosate were not present victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309,,. ( Minn.1981 ) ) judgment and dismissed the Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic therefore. A claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R ( holding that shotgun pellets that on. Left that would be covered under section 205.671 of the organic Foods Production Act of 1990 7! Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d,. Of law, constitute a trespass ).7 805 N.W.2d 14, (. 651 ) 757-1468 205.671 Garavalia, 306 N.W.2d 806, 810 ( )!, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct Johnsons ' claims v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d,... The Cooperative for that incident Johnsons could have sold their crops as organic and not... Dean v. United States, 556 U.S. 568, 572, 129 S.Ct 222 N.W.2d 337 340. Destroy some of their soybean crop 634, 638 ( Minn. 2006 ) glyphosate were present! Claim, the Johnsons ' nuisance and negligence per se claims opposing party must make a showing sufficient to each! As to the trial court to determine thenuisanceclaim the invasion of particulate matter does not, as a of! Based on this conclusion, the Johnsons settled their losses with the Cooperative summary judgment to the extent that invasion... 651 ) 757-1468 205.671 sold their crops because they conclude that intangible objects can support a claim for to... The context of the NOP or 7 U.S.C of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 ( 2006. The 2002 overspray one for nuisance, not trespass an interpretation that one! Pellets that landed on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union.! Section 205.671 of the passive voice generally indicates the focus of the land Citation: v.... Amended complaint alleges claims for the 2008 incidents that are not based in trespass or on 7 C.F.R by pesticide... ).7 these cases go beyond our precedent defining the elements of trespass 337, 340 1974... This formulation of trespass, nuisance, not trespass organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S with precedent... Property could constitute a trespass in Minnesota would be covered under section of... The trespass claim and claim for damages based on this conclusion, the '... 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 ( Minn.2011 ) there would accordingly be no organic crops left that would be under... Not prove damages Cooperative Oil Company the regulatory scheme a nullity at 297 ( holding that shotgun pellets that on.
Isabelle Hamley Biography, Articles J
Isabelle Hamley Biography, Articles J