“A new high-tech aerial photography system that can spot an illegal porch from 5,000 feet is being marketed to tax assessors as a way to grow revenue.” Backers say the system can help assessors spot not only unauthorized building additions but also cases in which taxpayers claim farmstead exemptions but aren’t farming enough of their land to qualify. (Richard Degener, “Taxes could get sky-high with aerial technology”, Press of Atlantic City, Sept. 29).
Posts Tagged ‘agriculture and farming’
Plaintiffs scrambling to sue egg producers over alleged price fixing
Two separate lawsuits were filed in federal courts in Minneapolis and Pennsylvania in recent days against egg producers. The Pennsylvania suit, a class action, and the Minneapolis suit, which the plaintiffs are seeking to certify as a class action, both allege various egg makers have engaged in price fixing.
But with the price of chicken feed skyrocketing due to the cost of fuel and the diversion of corn from feed to ethanol, and previous lawsuits by animal rights groups resulting in fewer laying hens occupying more space per hen, it’s no surprise that a carton of eggs–like nearly every other food–costs consumers more money these days.
Do not propagate these grapes
Shrinkwrap contracts in the produce section (Mike Madison, Sept. 18).
Update: unlawful to test for mad cow
By a 2-1 margin with Judge David Sentelle dissenting, a panel of the D.C. Circuit upheld the USDA’s rule prohibiting companies from testing beef they own for the dread disease. The rule had been challenged by Creekstone Farms, a Kansas-based meat exporter. (Legal Times “BLT”; opinion in PDF; earlier).
June 9 roundup
- Florida trial lawyers have funneled millions to Gov. Charlie Crist and GOP state legislators; now guess why Orlando isn’t going to get commuter rail [Bousquet/St. Petersburg Times; Sentinel]
- What his ex-law firm told the world was “extremely inappropriate personal conduct” was in reality no more than a “brief, consensual kiss” with co-worker, charges attorney in $90 million defamation suit; Kasowitz Benson says it was following zero tolerance policy [American Lawyer]
- SCOTUS, 9-0, Thomas writing, narrows scope for money-laundering charges over hiding unexplained cash — but will that curb forfeiture abuse? [Grits for Breakfast, Greenfield]
- After West Virginia high court refuses to review $405 million royalty dispute jury verdict against Chesapeake Energy and another defendant, company scraps plans to build $30 million headquarters in the state [PoL]
- Even after discounting anti-corporate rhetoric, there does seem to be a story here about aggressive seed patent litigation tactics used by agri-giant Monsanto, a firm known to our readers [Barlett & Steele, Vanity Fair; earlier]
- Medical liability consequences of much-promoted concept of hospital “never events” [Buckeye Surgeon]
- Cellphone rage update: Judge Robert Restaino ousted for jailing 46 people after one of the annoying devices rang out in his Niagara Falls, N.Y. courtroom [Buffalo News, earlier]
U.K.: Farm stiles and gates yield to wheelchair access
In the English countryside stiles and so-called kissing gates “have been a familiar feature of the landscape for centuries, but local authorities now believe that installing them along footpaths and rights of way is a breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995.” (“Farms kiss goodbye to stiles and gates to allow wheelchair access”, Times Online, Nov. 30). According to Wikipedia, some kissing gates are designed on a large enough scale that wheelchairs can pass through.
Activists sue demanding N.Y. foie gras ban
Correspondent R.C. directs our attention to the curious claim of “harm” by the last-named plaintiff:
Animal rights activists have asked a state judge to stop foie gras production in New York, saying the ducks used are overfed to such an extent that they are diseased and unfit for sale under state law.
The lawsuit, if it succeeds, could spell the end of foie gras production in America, a goal animal rights groups have long sought. The two Sullivan county farms that are defendants in the suit are the only foie gras producers in the country, other than a Northern Californian foie gras farm that may shut down under a California state law banning the industry….
The first challenge the suit faces is to convince a judge that the animal-rights activists who filed the suit have suffered enough harm to allow them standing to sue. The plaintiffs in yesterday’s suit offered several ways that they had been harmed by the foie gras industry.
One plaintiff, Caroline Lee, claims that the state’s regulatory departments are misspending her tax dollars by inspecting birds raised for foie gras production without concluding they are diseased. Another plaintiff, an animal rescue organization, Farm Sanctuary, claims its employees have been “aesthetically and emotionally injured” by being exposed to the “suffering” of abandoned ducks that they rescue from foie gras production. Another plaintiff, a New York restaurateur, Joy Pierson, claims that her decision not to serve foie gras has caused her to lose customers at her two Manhattan restaurants, Candle 79 and Candle Café, according to the complaint.
(Joseph Goldstein, “In New Lawsuit, Activists Seek Ban On Production of Foie Gras in N.Y.”, New York Sun, Nov. 16). More: Nov. 10, Nov. 2, Aug. 18, Jun. 8, Apr. 27, etc.
Blogger gets nastygram from Monsanto
Tom Philpott, whose Bitter Greens Journal is intended “as a running critique of industrial agriculture, a clearinghouse for info on sustainable farming, and a working manifesto for a liberation politics based on food” has run assorted short items on that blog under the heading “Roundup, Ready”. The phrase plays on the name of the herbicide-resistant “Roundup Ready” seed line of the giant Monsanto corporation, of which Philpott is predictably a fervent critic. Now a Monsanto lawyer has sent him a cease and desist letter warning him to drop the offending term or else. (Aug. 26, Aug. 29, Sept. 2). Monsanto is already notorious for suing a dairy in Maine on the free-speech-chilling theory that it was somehow unfair, misleading or deceptive for the dairy to boast in its advertising that its milk did not contain artificial bovine growth hormones, since there’s nothing wrong with the hormones; see Sept. 17, 2003.
Update: PETA vs. “Happy Cows” ads
Animal-rights extremist group PETA has failed in its effort to invoke California’s s. 17200 unfair-practices act to suppress a state advertising campaign characterizing California dairy products as coming from “happy cows”. Without comment, the state Supreme Court has denied review of an appeals court decision throwing out the lawsuit, which had held that official government activity (in this case that of the state’s farmer-funded milk advisory board) is not covered by the statute (see Nov. 30, 2004 and Jan. 16, 2005). (Bob Egelko, “State justices refuse PETA a hearing on the life of cows”, San Francisco Chronicle, Apr. 21).
Update: “Happy Cows” ads
California’s s. 17200, while handy in kneecapping private businesses which try to defend themselves in public controversies, can’t be used to silence speech by government: “An animal rights group’s challenge to a ‘Happy Cows’ advertising campaign by a state advisory board was rejected by a California appeals court in San Francisco today. The Court of Appeal said that a government entity can’t be sued for false advertising under the state’s Unfair Business Practices Act.” (“Animal rights group loses lawsuit against ‘Happy Cows’ commercial”, San Mateo County Times, Jan. 12; Mike McKee, “PETA Loses Suit Over California Cow Ads”, The Recorder, Jan. 13)(see Nov. 30). Update Apr. 23: California Supreme Court denies review.