IN RE: James Edwin Ollis, Debtor(s)., No. CV 18-04549-HB, 2019 WL 1313397 (Bankr. D.S.C. Mar. 21, 2019)
Before the Court was consideration of the Motion for Relief from Stay filed by Creditor Rabo Agrifinance LLC and the objection to the Motion and Objection to Claim filed by Debtor. Creditor’s Objection was granted as there was no prove that debtor farmer had the ability to make payments.
Salem Grain Co., Inc. v. City of Falls City, 302 Neb. 548 (2019)
Falls City is a community located in Richardson County, Nebraska. Pursuant to the Community Development Law, Falls City created the five-member Falls City Community Redevelopment Authority (the Authority) to redevelop blighted or substandard areas within Falls City.3
In 2012, Consolidated Grain and Barge Co. (Consolidated Grain) proposed a redevelopment project that involved constructing a new commercial grain receiving, storage, and shipping facility in Falls City using tax increment financing (TIF). The owner of another commercial grain facility in the area, Salem Grain Company, Inc. (Salem Grain), opposed the redevelopment project.
The Court found  that all of Salem Grain’s claims challenging the procedure by which the redevelopment project was adopted and the validity and enforceability of the redevelopment agreement and bond are conclusively foreclosed
TASNEEM L. MOHAMED, Plaintiff, v. KELLOGG COMPANY, Defendant., No. 14-CV-2449-L-MDD, 2019 WL 1330920 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2019)
Plaintiff is a consumer who purchased Gardenburger brand vegetarian hamburgers, which are produced by Defendant. Plaintiff alleges she relied on the representation on the package that Gardenburgers were “made with natural ingredients.” However, Gardenburgers contain hexane-processed soy ingredients. Hexane is allegedly derived from crude oil, natural gas liquids, or petroleum refinery products. Soy beans are bathed in hexane to separate soybean oil from protein. According to the complaint, Gardenburgers contain two hexane-processed ingredients: soy lecithin and soy proteins. Plaintiff claims that the presence of these ingredients renders the claim “made with natural ingredients” false and misleading to the consumers, and that based on this representation, consumers paid a price premium over comparable products which do not claim to be made with natural ingredients.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for class action certification. Defendant filed an opposition, and Plaintiff replied. This matter is submitted on the briefs pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1.d.1.  Plaintiff’s motion for class certification was denied.
Stop the Dump Coal. v. Yamhill Cty., 364 Or. 432, 435 P.3d 698 (2019) Intervenor-respondent Riverbend Landfill Co. seeks to expand its solid waste landfill in Yamhill County on land zoned for exclusive farm use (EFU). To obtain site design review and a floodplain development permit for the expansion, Riverbend had to meet what is sometimes known as the farm impacts test, set out in ORS 215.296. Subsection (1) of that statute precludes approval of a proposed nonfarm use when the use would “[f]orce a significant change” in accepted farm practices or “[s]ignificantly increase the cost” of those practices on surrounding agricultural lands. Subsection (2) provides that a permit applicant may meet the farm impacts test through the local government’s imposition of conditions of approval.

When the parties dispute whether a nonfarm use will force a significant change to a particular accepted farmpractice or significantly increase the cost of that practice, the farm impacts test in ORS 215.296(1) requires an applicant to prove that the proposed nonfarm use (1) will not force a significant change in the accepted farm practice and (2) will not significantly increase the cost of that practice. A “significant” change or increase in cost is one that will have an important influence or effect on the farm. For each relevant accepted farm practice, if the applicant cannot prove both of those elements without conditions of approval, the local government must consider whether, with conditions of approval, the applicant will meet the farm impacts test.  The court affirmed in part and denied in part.

STATE OF DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES & ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, Plaintiff, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS OF DELAWARE, INC., Defendant., No. CV 18-838 (MN), 2019 WL 1333266 (D. Del. Mar. 25, 2019) Before the Court is the motion of Gary and Anna-Marie Cuppels and more than 690 others similarly situated (collectively, “Intervenors”) to intervene in this case pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the rights of intervention afforded by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). (D.I. 4). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to intervene was granted.
The Intervenors are residents and property owners who reside within five miles of a poultry processing plant and disposal facilities owned and operated by Defendant Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc. and its related companies, Mountaire Corporation and Mountaire Farms, Inc. (collectively, “Mountaire”). (D.I. 4 at 1). The Intervenors allege that “Mountaire has disposed of billions of gallons of highly contaminated wastewater and liquefied sludge on lands near the Intervenors’ residences,” which has seeped into the groundwater and caused nitrates to spread “for miles” and reach “dangerously high” concentrations in the surrounding area. (Id. at 2). The Intervenors claim that the groundwater contamination has rendered their water undrinkable, caused adverse health effects and caused the Intervenors’ property to lose “substantial value.”
RICHARDSON-NORTH CORPORATION & ELIAS RICHARDSON, III, Plaintiffs, v. ROBERT KNAPIK, JOHN GNIADEK, & MARK KAFERLEIN in their Official Capacity as the Members of the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF UXBRIDGE, Defendants., No. 17 MISC 000271 (RBF), 2019 WL 1319225 (Mass. Land Ct. Mar. 21, 2019), judgment entered, No. 17 MISC 000271 (RBF), 2019 WL 1319217 (Mass. Land Ct. Mar. 21, 2019) 

Elias Richardson, III (Elias III) and his son Elias Richardson, IV (Elias IV) own and operate a 202-acre farm in Uxbridge, on the border with Rhode Island. The farm consists of six separate parcels; one of the parcels is held in the name of Richardson-North Corporation (Richardson-North). In or around 1990, Elias III contracted to have gravel removed from the 111-acre parcel owned by Richardson-North. After Elias III obtained a gravel removal permit from the Town of Uxbridge, gravel was removed from the parcel through 2016, creating a 45-acre, 40-foot deep pit on the property. Elias III and Elias IV now want to fill that pit, and restore that portion of the farm to grow crops, mainly feed for their cows. In 2015, Elias III entered an agreement with Green Acres Reclamation, LLC (Green Acres) to accept fill from construction projects in and around Boston. The agreement seemed like a “win-win” for the parties. Green Acres charged the construction projects to take away the fill; Elias III would be paid to accept the fill and would also have the pit filled in and restored to farming use.
The Uxbridge Building Commissioner, Larry Lench, disagreed. In January and February 2017, he sent Elias III two letters, ordering him to cease and desist all soil importation operations immediately, on the grounds that soil importation is not a permitted use under the Uxbridge Zoning Bylaw. Elias III and Richardson-North appealed the letters to the Uxbridge Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), which issued a decision upholding the Building Commissioner’s order. Elias III and Richardson-North appealed to this court, and the matter was tried to me. After hearing the evidence and viewing the farm at issue, the court found that the soil importation activities are an accessory use to the primary permitted agricultural use of the farm.