In this episode, Paul discusses a 2017 court ruling that will require livestock operations to report ammonia emissions under a federal law theComprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
In this episode, Paul discusses the recent Ninth Circuit Ruling that found a portion of Idaho’s ag gag law constutional, reversing a lower court decision that found the entire law unconstitutional. This ruling may open up new opportunities for these laws if written properly.
In this episode, Paul is joined by Tiffany Lashmet from Texas AgriLife Extension to discuss the top legal issues in agriculture for 2017. This is a joint podcast with Ag Law in the Field.
In this episode, Paul discusses a recent decision out of Arizona interpreting the state’s branding law. The Supreme Court of Arizona held that the state’s branding law did not allow for registering identical brands even if used at different locations.
In this episode, Paul discusses a recent federal district court decision that found that an insurance policy with an absolute pollution exclusion excluded damage caused by manure. The insurance company was also found to have no duty to defend the insured party. This decision involves the Cow Palace Dairy that had earlier settled claims that manure had leaked into groundwater and agreed to clean up costs associated with the damage.
In this episode, Paul discusses a recent 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling holding that Wyoming’s Data Trespass law violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constutition. This law has been seen by many to be a version of an ag-gag law. Paul also gives producers tips on what can be done that is still constitutional.
In this episode, Paul discusses a recent decision, Complete Lawn Care, Inc. v. Montgomery County, that found that Montgomery County’s pesticide ordinance was preempted by state law. The ordinance created a new class of pesticides that could only be sold in the county when used on private property and county-owned property for cosmetic purposes. The ordinance contained a number of exemptions including one for agriculture. The court found the law was preempted by state laws related to pesticide use. Materials discussed in this episode: