Judicial:
CLAUDIA CASSER, Plaintiff, v. TOWNSHIP OF KNOWLTON, et al., Defendants. Additional Party Names: Joseph Layton, Knowlton Twp. Planning Bd., Mark Hontz, Maser Consulting, Rabner, Robert Greenbaum, Ted Rodman, No. 3:17-CV-01174(PGS), 2018 WL 6069165 (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2018): Plaintiff Claudia Casser brought two actions in the Superior Court of New Jersey, the first in 2010 and the second in 2013 primarily seeking two remedies – (1) to reverse or vacate the zoning resolution of Knowlton Township which authorized Casser to cluster ten single family homes on her 100 acre farm and to set aside about 50 acres for agricultural preservation; and (2) to award compensatory damages for taking her land without just compensation (inverse condemnation). The 2010 lawsuit challenged the land use approvals and sought damages, and the 2013 suit challenged approvals that two other landowners obtained from Knowlton Township and the validity of the zoning ordinance. The suits were consolidated on appeal and is referred to as the Prior State Lawsuit. The court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss.
LINDA K. MILLER, Appellant, v. WILLIAM A. BURNETT, Appellee., No. 118,924, 2018 WL 6071463 (Kan. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018):
Linda Miller sued her landlord, William Burnett, for damages after he allowed his neighbor’s horses to graze on the 35 acres of pastureland that she had rented from him and, she alleged, also denied her access to the land for several months. Burnett filed a counterclaim against Miller, claiming she hadn’t paid rent. After the district court ruled against Miller, she appealed to this court; the court sent the case back for further consideration. The district court again ruled against Miller, and Miller again appealed, arguing that the district court should have awarded her damages for Burnett letting horses graze on the leased land.
As Plainfitt Miller had the burden to prove her damages. The court affirms the district court’s judgment.
All. for the Wild Rockies v. United States Forest Serv., 907 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2018):
This case requires the court to determine whether the Forest Service’s management direction for a particular section of Idaho’s Payette National Forest is consistent with the management direction that governs the forest as a whole. In September 2014, the United States Forest Service approved the Lost Creek-Boulder Creek Landscape Restoration Project (“Lost Creek Project” or “Project”), which proposed landscape restoration activities on approximately 80,000 acres of the Payette National Forest. Following approval of the Project, Plaintiffs-Appellants the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, Idaho Sporting Congress, and Native Ecosystems Council (collectively, “Alliance”) filed suit in federal court, claiming Defendants-Appellees United States Forest Service, Thomas Tidwell, Keith Lannom, and Nora Rasure (collectively, “Forest Service”) violated the National Forest Management Act (“NFMA”) by failing to adhere to the requirements of the 2003 Payette National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (“the Payette Forest Plan” or “the 2003 Plan”). The 2003 Plan governs management decisions on all land within the Payette National Forest, including the Lost Creek Project. Specifically, the Alliance claimed that the Forest Service acted inconsistently with the Payette Forest Plan, in a manner that would harm certain habitat within the forest, when it created a new definition for “old forest habitat” and designated certain land to be managed for landscape restoration, as opposed to commodity production. According to the Alliance, although the Lost Creek Project espoused certain environmental benefits, the upshot of these decisions would be an increase in commercial logging and a decrease in habitat protected as “old forest.” The Alliance also claimed the Forest Service violated the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) by improperly incorporating the analysis of—or “tiering to”—prior agency documents that did not undergo a full NEPA review. Finally, the Alliance claimed the Forest Service violated the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) by failing to reinitiate consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service regarding the effects on critical habitat for the bull trout.
In its present appeal, the Alliance challenges the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Forest Service and Intervenor-Defendants-Appellees Adams County and the Payette Forest Coalition (collectively, “Adams County”). The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The Court affirms in part and reverses in part.
THE SECURITY NATIONAL BANK OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, as the duly appointed Pers. Representative of the Estate of Roger E. Rand, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANK H. WELTE II, DIANE WELTE, MATTHEW WELTE, WELTE FLATS FARMS, INC., BJM, INC., WESTERN SLOPES FARMS, VALLEY FLATS FARMS, INC. & DONALD MOLSTAD, Defendants-Appellees., No. 17-0907, 2018 WL 6120206 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018): The Security National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa (SNB), was appointed personal representative of Roger Rand’s estate and filed a petition for replevin against multiple defendants. SNB requested immediate possession of farm-related personal property upon which Rand held a perfected security interest. A hearing was held, and the district court issued two separate rulings, one of which is the subject of this appeal. On the merits, the court finds the district court erred in determining the two tractors, subject to this appeal, were properly sold within an implied course of dealing and thereby not subject to Rand’s perfected security interest.
DWAYNE SUNBERG & PATRICIA SUNBERG, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AUDUBON COUNTY, IOWA, AUDUBON COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, & AUDUBON COUNTY SOIL AND WATER COMMISSION, Defendants-Appellees., No. 17-1192, 2018 WL 6131912 (Iowa Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2018): Dwayne and Patricia Sunberg initiated a lawsuit against Audubon County, the Audubon County Board of Supervisors, and the Audubon County Soil and Water Commission (collectively, “the defendants”) seeking damages for the defendants’ alleged failure to properly maintain a soil and water conservation structure located on the Sunbergs’ property. On appeal, the Sunbergs claim the defendants have a statutory, contractual, and common law duty to maintain the structure by removing accumulated silt or taking action to reduce the rate the silt would accumulate. They assert the district court was wrong to conclude the defendants did not owe a duty to the Sunbergs to maintain the structure or, alternatively, even if the defendants did owe a duty to maintain, their inaction allowing the accumulation of silt was not a breach of the duty to maintain.
REGULATORY:
30-Day notice of submission of information collection approval from the Office of Management and Budget and request for comments: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; As part of a Federal Government-wide effort to streamline the process to seek feedback from the public on service delivery, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has submitted a Generic Information Collection Request (Generic ICR): “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to OMB for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). Info
HERE
Extension of approval of an information collection; comment request: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s intention to request an extension of approval of an information collection associated with training related to animal diseases. Info
HERE
Direct final rule: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA; The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD), comprised of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS), hereafter referred to as the Agency, is issuing a direct final rule to update the Agency’s Environmental Policies and Procedures regulation (
7 CFR 1970) to allow the Agency Administrators limited flexibility to obligate federal funds for infrastructure projects prior to completion of the environmental review while ensuring full compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures prior to project construction and disbursement of any RD funding. This change will allow RD to more fully meet the Administration’s goals to speed the initiation of infrastructure projects and encourage planned community economic development without additional cost to taxpayers or change to environmental review requirements. Info
HERE
Notice of availability: Bureau of Land Management, Interior. United States Forest Service, Agriculture; In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended, and the Federal Land Policy Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service (USFS) Caribou-Targhee National Forest, have prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed Dairy Syncline Phosphate Mine Project (Project), and by this Notice announce the opening of the comment period. Info
HERE
Notice and request for comments: National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA; In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces the intention of the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) to seek approval to conduct a new information collection to gather economic data from a sample of homeowners, golf courses, sod producers, turfgrass service providers, and commercial businesses with turfgrass in New Jersey. Info
HERE
Direct final rule: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA; The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD), comprised of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS), hereafter referred to as the Agency, is issuing a direct final rule to update the Agency’s Environmental Policies and Procedures regulation (
7 CFR 1970) to allow the Agency Administrators limited flexibility to obligate federal funds for infrastructure projects prior to completion of the environmental review while ensuring full compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures prior to project construction and disbursement of any RD funding. This change will allow RD to more fully meet the Administration’s goals to speed the initiation of infrastructure projects and encourage planned community
economic development without additional cost to taxpayers or change to environmental review requirements. Info
HEREProposed rule: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, Rural Utilities Service, Farm Service Agency, USDA; The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development (RD), comprised of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS), Rural Housing Service (RHS), and Rural Utilities Service (RUS), hereafter referred to as the Agency, proposes amending the Agency’s Environmental Policies and Procedures regulation to allow the Agency Administrators limited flexibility to obligate federal funds for infrastructure projects prior to completion of the environmental review while ensuring full compliance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) procedures prior to project construction and disbursement of funding. The proposed change will allow RD to more fully meet the Administration’s goals to speed the initiation of infrastructure projects and encourage planned community economic development without additional cost to taxpayers or change to environmental review requirements. Info
HERE
Final rule: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); This regulation establishes tolerances for residues of pyrifluquinazon in or on multiple commodities that are identified and discussed later in this document. Nichino America, Inc. requested these tolerances under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Info
HERE
Notification of submission to the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); This document notifies the public as required by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that the EPA Administrator has forwarded to the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) a draft regulatory document concerning Pesticides; Technical Amendment to Data Requirements for Antimicrobial Pesticides. The draft regulatory document is not available to the public until after it has been signed and made available by EPA. Info
HERE
Public meeting: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), is announcing a meeting of the National Organic Standards Board (NOSB). The NOSB assists the USDA in the development of standards for substances to be used in organic production and advises the Secretary of Agriculture on any other aspects of the implementation of the Organic Foods Production Act (OFPA). Info
HERE
