";s:4:"text";s:29433:"The Johnsons contend that the phrase applied to it in the regulation, read in conjunction with other sections of the NOP, means that any application of pesticides to a field, whether intentional or not, requires that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years.11 Based on this reading, the Johnsons assert that they were required to take their soybean field back to the beginning of the 3year transition period because of the 2007 pesticide drift.12 As a result, the Johnsons claim they lost the ability to market crops from that field as organic, and therefore lost the opportunity to seek the premium prices commanded by organic products. Smelting & Ref. 205.203(a) (2012) (The producer must select and implement tillage and cultivation practices); 7 C.F.R. And they alleged that the overspray forced them to destroy some of their crops. The email address cannot be subscribed. 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. 6511(d). 11 For a similar case see Flansburgh v. The OFPA thus contemplates that organic products with some amount of prohibited substance residue on them may be marketed and sold as organic. 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. Johnson sold his herbicide-tainted crops at lower, nonorganic prices and, as required by federal regulation, removed the tainted field from organic production for three years. See Weston v. McWilliams Assocs., Inc., 716 N.W.2d 634, 638 (Minn. 2006). Finally, they allege that Oluf Johnson suffers from cotton mouth, swollen throat and headaches when exposed to pesticide drift. Reading the phrase "applied to it" in 7 C.F.R. 205.671confirms this interpretation. See id. He smelled chemicals in the air over his field, leaving him with "cottonmouth, headache and nausea" and his wife a headache and nausea. 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. Bradley v. Am. 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. We hold that it can. 205.202(b). , 132 S.Ct. 205, as the "organic food production law" of Minnesota). 1989). 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. Respondents Oluf and In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. We have previously held that invasion by water constitutes a trespass and invasion by a bullet constitutes a trespass. 86, 342 P.2d 790, 793 (Or.1959) (suggesting that one explanation for the historical adherence to a distinction between tangible and intangible invasions of land was that science had not yet peered into the molecular and atomic world of small particles). See 7 U.S.C. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. 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. Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 31112, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 (1945) (water); Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 391, 111 N.W. STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.2002). Because only one of the three chemicals was present based on its testing, the MDA concluded that it can not be proven if the detections were from drift. And even though the testing did not find diflufenzopyr, the MDA still required that the Johnsons plow down a small portion of the soybeans growing in the field because of the presence of dicamba and based on the visual damage observed to this crop. _____ Arlo H. Vande 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. 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. 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. 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. A101596 Decided: July 25, 2011 but we think the district court read too much into our specific wording in WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee Study Aids Case Briefs Overview Casebooks Case Id. App., decided July 25, 2011). See, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 38889. Prot. The MDA investigated and determined that the cooperative illegally sprayed herbicide, causing visually apparent tainting of the Johnsons' crops consistent with drift. And we hold that the federal regulation that prohibits the sale of produce labeled organic if it is tainted with chemicals at levels greater than five percent of the EPA's specified limit does not, by reverse implication, automatically authorize the sale of organically labeled produce that does not fail that five-percent test. Oluf Johnson complained to the cooperative after the 1998 incident, and it apologized, promising to "make it right." Section 205.202(c) provides that any field from which crops are intended to be sold as organic must have distinct boundaries and buffer zones to prevent unintended application of a prohibited substance. Section 205.400 details the requirements that a producer must meet in order to gain organic certification. WebCase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 272. 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. favorite this post Jan 16 Couch for sale $250 (wdc > Leesburg) 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. 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. 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 Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. The Johnsons seek loss of profits under both the nuisance and negligence per se claims based on their alleged inability to market their crops as organic under 7 C.F.R. Lake v. WalMart Stores, Inc., 582 N.W.2d 231, 236 (Minn.1998) (concluding that we are not persuaded that a new cause of action should be recognized if little additional protection is afforded plaintiffs). 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. The district court adopted the interpretation of the NOP regulation that the Cooperative advances. at 297 (holding that shotgun pellets that landed on the plaintiff's property could constitute a trespass).7. 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. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. Final 2.docx - Final Research Case Brief Legal Research Doc Preview. PDF United States Court of Appeals The plaintiffs were organic farmers who alleged that 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. 802 N.W.2d at 391. 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. They also contend that the drift caused additional record-keeping and other burdens in connection with the operation of their farm. 165 (1945) (stating that a law will not be strictly read if such reading results in the emasculation or deletion of a provision which a less literal reading would preserve.). Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. P. 15.01. The question therefore is not one of damages but is more properly framed as a question of causation. at 388. WebMinnesota.gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal Office of Appellate Courts . 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. TermsPrivacyDisclaimerCookiesDo Not Sell My Information, Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select, Stay up-to-date with FindLaw's newsletter for legal professionals. Oil Co. Case below, 817 N.W.2d 693. 709 P.2d at 784, 790. See 7 U.S.C. At FindLaw.com, we pride ourselves on being the number one source of free legal information and resources on the web. 6520(a)(2). See Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. The Johnsons sued Appellant on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se, seeking damages and injunctive relief. Case brief Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012) Facts: Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member owned farm that has products and services, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnsons are organic farmers. 7 U.S.C. 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. Domagala v. Rolland, 805 N.W.2d 14, 22 (Minn.2011). Chemical Spray If the land is under lease, the lessee might be the person who has 774 F.3d 1185 - DRB NO. Bad smell, we held, was a nuisance rather than a trespass because, although the essence of the intruding matter was technically a physical substance, it interferes with enjoyment and use of the property but not with its possession. WebPaynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co. EN English Deutsch Franais Espaol Portugus Italiano Romn Nederlands Latina Dansk Svenska Norsk Magyar Bahasa Indonesia Trke Suomi Latvian Lithuanian esk Unknown The phrase "applied to" is not defined in the regulations, but we hold that it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift. 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. No Minnesota case has addressed whether unwanted pesticide drift from a targeted field to an adjacent otherwise organic farming operation can constitute a trespass. 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. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 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. For example, if someone causes harmful dust to enter a person's land and that dust settles on the person's land and interferes with the owner's possession of the land, it would seem that a trespass has occurred. See Minn. Stat. You can explore additional available newsletters here. 7 C.F.R. He specifically asked the cooperative to take precautions to avoid overspraying pesticide onto his fields when treating adjacent fields. 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. Minnesota Attorney Generals Office . WebThe Johnsons, organic farmers, claimed that while Appellant, a cooperative, was spraying pesticide onto conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the Johnsons' fields, some We compared the odors in Wendinger to the "noxious fumes" that were emanating from a wastewater plant in Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 n. 2 (Minn. App. The certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of section 205.202(b) and the OFPA was the proximate cause of the Johnsons' injury, but the Johnsons cannot hold the Cooperative liable for the certifying agent's erroneous interpretation of the law. The OFPA focuses on the producers and handlers of the products that are marketed and sold as organic. 205.202(b), and therefore that OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' fields. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law, we reverse the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. 6511(a). In January 2009, the Johnsons sued the cooperative for the 2005 and 2007 incidents. E .g., In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.2007) (considering whether a federal regulation was ambiguous). 2(b) (2010), and to spray pesticide in a manner "inconsistent with a label or labeling," Minn. Stat. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. In summary, we conclude that the Johnsons' trespass claim, and nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. 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. 18B.07, subd. Based on the presence of pesticides in their fields, the Johnsons filed this lawsuit against the Cooperative, alleging trespass, nuisance, negligence per se, and battery. 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 distinct language in section 205.202(b) is striking in comparison to these provisions. 1998), review denied (Minn. Dec. 15, 1998). As is true for the OFPA and the NOP as a whole, section 205.202(c) is also directed at the producer of organic products, not third parties. Get free summaries of new Minnesota Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox! But interpreting the regulation to allow for an automatic under-five-percent safe harbor for drift ignores this additional, more specific commentary: We do not speculate as to the Johnsons' damages, but we hold that the district court erroneously rejected their claims for lack of damages on the ground that, by virtue of there having been no finding of five-percent contamination, no damages could be proven. The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. Webjohnson v paynesville farmers union case briefround nesting side tables set 29 grudnia 2021 / nonna biscotti costco / w union jack pub menu speedway in / Autor Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). Plaintiffs were farmers who grew organic crops. On July 3, 2008, the Johnsons reported another incident of alleged contamination to the MDA. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnson (Johnsons) were organic farmers. We normally presume that, where words differ as they differ here, Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion. (citation omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted)). 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. 205.671. 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. Having concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law, we turn next to their nuisance and negligence per se claims. We turn first to the portion of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims that are based on 7 C.F.R. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 70. Simply put, the policy concerns that have compelled other jurisdictions to abandon the traditional view of trespass are not present in Minnesota. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. 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). . Claim this business. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. If the agent determines that a product intended to be sold as organic contains any [detectible] pesticide, the producer may be required to prove that any prohibited substance was not applied to that product. 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). The district court also denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint, reasoning that the claims arising from the 2008 overspray would fail for the same reasons the 2007-overspray claims failed. 205.203(c) (2012) (The producer must manage plant and animal materials). 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. You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. Here, the district court concluded that the Johnsons' amendments adding the 2008 claims would not withstand summary judgment for the same reasons that the 2007 claims for trespass, negligence per se, and nuisance failed. 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. 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. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company. 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. 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). 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. In this case, the court concludes that the OFPA's focus on producers and handlers of organic products informs its interpretation that applied to in section 205.202(b) refers only to application of pesticides by the organic farmer. 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782, 786-90 (1985). 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. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE Having concluded that applied to it refers to situations where the producer has applied prohibited substances to the field, we must consider whether the district court correctly dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims based on 7 C.F.R. 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). The distinction between trespass and nuisance should not be based on whether the object invading the land is tangible or intangible. Our conclusion that the district court properly dismissed the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. However, this burden on property owner is inconsistent with the purpose oftrespasslaw which is to protect the unconditional right of property owners even when no damages are provable. WebCase Brief (19,287) Case Opinion (19,683) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. But the district court should deny a motion to amend a complaint when the proposed claim could not survive a summary-judgment motion. Despite the Johnsons' requests, in 1998, 2002, 2005, 2007, and 2008, the cooperative sprayed pesticide and herbicide on fields adjacent to theirs in a manner that violated Minnesota law, causing chemicals to land on the Johnsons' farm. Injunctive relief is a permissible remedy under that statute. Because those rest on erroneous conclusions of law, the district court's reason for denying the injunction fails. Organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson filed a civil suit alleging that the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company sprayed a chemical pesticide that Ins. Borland, 369 So.2d at 529; accord Bradley, 709 P.2d at 791. 6511(c)(2)(A). 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." Bd. PLST. The Court noted that under 7 C.F.R. But when the Johnsons gave the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the cooperative refused to pay. applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop." When people or tangible objects enter the plaintiff's land without permission, these entries disturb the landowner's right to exclusively possess her land. ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73. 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. 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 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. And both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involve a substantive invasion in which the deposited thing not merely vaporous and dissipating odors are the source of the injury arising out of the alleged trespass. The district court granted, in part, the Johnsons' motion for a temporary injunction on June 26, 2009, requiring the Cooperative to give the Johnsons notice before it sprayed pesticides on land adjoining the Johnsons' organic farm. 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." 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. We address only the allegations here, which go beyond inconsequential over-spray or odor-related intrusion. 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. Id. He plowed part of the alfalfa field under because it was "becoming choked with weeds and the alfalfa was very sick and poor.". It seems to me that differences in size, quantity, and harmfulness of varying types of particulate matter will have an effect on whether the invasion by the substance causes a trespass. Such invasions may interfere with the landowner's use and enjoyment of her land, but those invasions do not require that the landowner share possession of her land in the way that invasions by physical objects do. Oil Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 (Minn.App.2011). We conclude that they did not. 817 N.W.2d 693, 712 (Minn. 2012). Moreover, it is not necessary for us to depart from our traditional understanding of trespass because other causes of actionnuisance and negligenceprovide remedies for the type of behavior at issue in this case. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Oil Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 (Minn.App.2011). As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. The Johnsons assert that the Cooperative trespassed when it sprayed pesticide onto a neighboring conventional field and wind carried the pesticide, as particulate matter, onto the Johnsons' land. Petition for writ Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 6501-6523 (2006) (OFPA), on regulating the practices of the producer of organic products, the phrase unambiguously regulates behavior by the producer. Although neither Wendinger nor other Minnesota cases have directly addressed the issue, the reasoning underlying decisions in similar neighbor-liability cases leads us to conclude that chemical pesticide drift can constitute a trespass. The plain language of the phraseAny field or farm parcel must: (b) Have had no prohibited substances applied to itindicates that the concern is what the land in question was exposed to, not how it was exposed, why it was exposed, or who caused the exposure. ";s:7:"keyword";s:46:"johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief";s:5:"links";s:493:"Is Bo Van Pelt Related To Brad Van Pelt,
San Carlos Irrigation Project Solar,
How Old Is Amanda Lehmann,
Articles J
";s:7:"expired";i:-1;}