Judicial:

ELHANNON LLC, et al. v. THE F.A. BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY, 2018 WL 6040050 (D.Vt.); Before the Court was Defendant’s motion in limine to exclude Plaintiff from introducing evidence of Defendant’s alleged use of an “illegal” or “banned” chemical on Plaintiff’s tree nursery property. Defendant asserts that such evidence is inadmissible under FederalRules of Evidence (“FRE”) 401 and 403 because it is irrelevant, highly inflammatory and prejudicial, and likely to cause jury confusion. For the reasons set forth below, The court denied in pare and granted in part Defendant’s motion.
Timothy Langdon, et al., Appellants, v. Holden Farms, Inc., Respondent. Additional Party Names: Jennifer Langdon, No. A18-0320, 2018 WL 6034971 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2018); 

Appellants Timothy and Jennifer Langdon appeal from the district court’s decision after a court trial dismissing their breach-of-contact and breach-of-duty-of-good-faith-in-agricultural-contracts claims against respondent Holden Farms Inc., arguing that the district court erred as a matter of law. The court affirmed.  The contract was a grower contract for the production of hogs.  The Appellants were to build a confinement barn, that was never built.  Whether this was a breach of contract or a condition precedent was the crux of the case.
EDNA GREEN v. ST. GEORGE’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, No. M201700413COAR3CV, 2018 WL 6015982 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 16, 2018); This appeal arises from a jury verdict in a personal injury action. The defendant alleged the comparative fault of a nonparty who was potentially immune from liability under Tennessee’s agritourism statute. Before trial, the defendant asked the court to exclude all evidence and argument before the jury regarding statutory immunity as irrelevant and prejudicial. The court excluded argument and evidence of immunity but allowed the parties to present evidence on whether the nonparty had complied with the statute. At the conclusion of the trial, the court permitted the jury to apportion a percentage of fault to the nonparty without considering the nonparty’s compliance with the agritourism statute. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in allowing the jury to allocate fault to the nonparty because the agritourism statute provided immunity from fault as well as liability. The court concluded that nothing in the agritourism statute precludes the allocation of fault to a nonparty agritourismprofessional in a negligence action. The court affirms.