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:
In this episode, Paul discusses two recently filed class action lawsuits focused damage caused from dicamba drift. The two lawsuits are seeking damages from Monsanto for bringing the Roundup Ready 2Xtend varieties to market before the new dicamba was approved by EPA. Materials discussed in this episode:
In this episode, Paul discusses a recent tax court decision, Rutkoske v. Commissioner, that disallowed two brothers from taking 100 percent deduction for a charitable donation of a conservation easement. The brothers, in this case, had income from the sale of the farmland in question and from a sale of the conservation easement. That income did not count towards the gross farm income but towards gross other income. The brothers could only claim 50 percent of the charitable donation. Materials discussed in this episode:
In this episode, Paul discusses what a landowner should do after experiencing pesticide drift damage. A landowner should contact the Maryland Department of Agriculture to report the damage and allow the state to begin an investigation. The landowner should also begin to develop documentation related to the drift damage. Finally, the landowner would have options on how to recover damages. Materials discussed in this episode: