A comprehensive summary of today’s judicial, legislative, and regulatory developments in agriculture and food. Email important additions HERE

JUDICIAL: Issues Zoning, Estate Planning, Conservation Easements, International Trade, Nutritional Program

THE CARROLL AIRPORT COMMISSION (OPERATING THE ARTHUR N. NEU MUNICIPAL AIRPORT), Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOREN W. DANNER & PAN DANNER, Defendants-Appellants., The defendants, appeal from the district court ruling granting the Airport Commission’s petition for abatement of a nuisance. The court determined the grain leg built by the defendants on their property, near the Airport, was a nuisance, as it violated local and state zoning ordinances and statutes. The court ordered the defendants to “abate said nuisance by either removing the grain leg structure or modifying the height of the grain leg structure to be in compliance with the regulations and law concerning the Airport’s protect[ed] airspace.” On appeal, the defendants contend the “no hazard” letter they obtained from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in July 2013 preempted the district court’s enforcement of state law.

Forbes Family Ranch Ltd. Liab. Co. v. Forbes, No. 17-P-704, 2018 WL 4354394,(Mass. App. Ct. Sept. 13, 2018), a beneficiary of a Trust, commenced this action, seeking to have two trustees removed as trustees of the trust pursuant after transactions involving conservation easements.  After a trial, a judge of the Probate and Family court entered judgment dismissing the complaint and beneficiary now appeals.
AN GIANG FISHERIES IMPORT AND EXPORT JOINT STOCK COMPANY ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant, & CATFISH FARMERS OF AMERICA ET AL., Defendant-Intervenors., No. 16-00072, 2018 WL 4361175 (Ct. Int’l Trade Sept. 12, 2018), Before the court is the U.S. Department of Commerce’s (“Department” or “Commerce”) remand redetermination filed pursuant to the court’s order in An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company v. United States, 42 CIT __, 287 F. Supp. 3d 1361 (2018) (“An Giang I”). On remand, Commerce explains that although it intended to first divide the farming factors of production (“FOP”) by the amount of harvested whole live fish and then apply the shank equivalent conversation factor, for the Final Results it reversed the calculations, making it appear that Commerce had incorrectly applied the shank equivalent conversion factor. See Remand Results at (citing Final Results Analysis Memo for An Giang Fisheries Import and Export Joint Stock Company and the [HVG] at (“Final Analysis Memo”)). Commerce contends that on remand it applied the calculations as it had originally intended and that the resulting farming FOP amounts remain the same. For the following reasons, Commerce has complied with the court’s remand order in An Giang I, Commerce’s determination is in accordance with law and supported by substantial evidence, and the court sustains the Remand Results.
Diane Saunders, Plaintiff, v. Donald J. Trump, et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Emily Piper Johnson, Linnea Mirsch, Sonny Perdue, United States of Am., No. 17-CV-5400 (WMW/LIB), 2018 WL 4381002 (D. Minn. Sept. 14, 2018),
he complaint alleges that Defendants violated multiple provisions of the United States Constitution and several statutory and regulatory requirements by reducing her SNAP benefit amount, failing to provide her timely and adequate notice of that reduction decision, and failing to provide a fair hearing at which she could appeal the decision. The complaint seeks injunctive and declaratory relief and an award of costs, disbursements, and attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, (Dkts. 7, 17, 46), and Saunders moved to enjoin the Commissioner and the County from reducing her SNAP benefit amount, (Dkt. 36).