JUDICIAL:
Carroll Airport Comm’n v. Danner, No. 17-1458, 2019 WL 2063392 (Iowa May 10, 2019);
In this appeal, we must determine the legal effect of a “no hazard” letter issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to a farmer who built a twelve-story grain leg (bucket elevator) near an airport. The structure intrudes sixty feet into airspace restricted for aviation. Construction was well underway when a member of the local airport commission cried foul. The airport commission informed the farmer he needed a variance and refused to grant one, without waiting for input from federal officials. Shortly thereafter, the FAA investigated and granted a no-hazard determination, approving the structure on the condition the farmer paint it and place blinking red lights on top, which he did. The FAA also adjusted the flight path. This did not satisfy the local commissioners, who two years later filed this action in equity to force the farmer to remove or modify the structure. The farmer raised an affirmative defense that the federal no-hazard determination preempted the local regulations.
The district court, sitting in equity, rejected the preemption defense and issued an injunction requiring the farmer to remove or alter the grain leg at his expense and imposed a daily penalty after a nine-month grace period to abate the nuisance. The farmer appealed, and the court transferred the case to the court of appeals, which affirmed the rejection of his preemption defense. The court granted the farmer’s application for further review.
On our de novo review, the court determined that the Federal Aviation Act allows for local zoning regulation, and the no-hazard letter did not preempt the local airport zoning regulations as a matter of law. They affirmed the district court’s finding the structure constitutes a threat to aviation requiring abatement. But they concluded that the $ 200 daily penalty should be vacated, and the nine-month period to modify or remove the structure shall begin anew when procedendo issues. They affirm the district court judgment as modified.
Mary La Vigne, Kristen Hessler, Kathleen Hogan, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Costco Wholesale Corp., Defendant-Appellant., No. 18-415-CV, 2019 WL 2059846 (2d Cir. May 9, 2019)
Plaintiffs-Appellants Mary La Vigne, Kristen Hessler, and Kathleen Hogan appeal the district court’s dismissal of their putative class action against Costco Wholesale Corporation (“Costco”) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Appellants allege that by failing to disclose the percentage of water in the name of its product—Kirkland Signature Premium Chunk Chicken Breast (“Kirkland Canned Chicken”)—Costco has engaged in unfair and deceptive commercial practices in violation of New York General Business Law § 349, Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., and Massachusetts General Law Chapter 93A. The district court held that Plaintiffs-Appellants’ claims concerning the Kirkland Canned Chicken label are preempted by the Poultry ProductsInspection Act (“PPIA”) and that Plaintiffs-Appellants’ remaining allegations failed to state a plausible claim to relief.
REGULATORY:
Final rule; technical amendments: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; This final rule amends the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Soybean Order) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) to add provisions allowing producers subject to these Orders to request, under certain circumstances, that their assessments paid to a State board or council authorized under their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. The final rule also makes technical amendments to the Beef Order. Info HERE
Final rule; technical amendments: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; This final rule amends the Soybean Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Order (Soybean Order) and the Beef Promotion and Research Order (Beef Order) to add provisions allowing producers subject to these Orders to request, under certain circumstances, that their assessments paid to a State board or council authorized under their respective statutes, be redirected to the national program. The final rule also makes technical amendments to the Beef Order. Info HERE
LEGISLATIVE:
H.R. 2531: To require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to more efficiently develop domestic sources of the minerals and mineral materials of strategic and critical importance to the economic and national security and manufacturing competitiveness of the United States, and for other purposes. Info HERE
S. 1326: A bill to amend the Animal Health Protection Act to establish a grant program for research on chronic wasting disease, and for other purposes. Info HERE
Share: