Rochester hog farmer entitled to damages because of lawsuit, court rules
By DEBRA LANDIS
THE STATE JOURNAL-REGISTER
Posted Sep 11, 2009 @ 11:30 PM
ROCHESTER, IL —
A Rochester hog farmer is entitled to damages stemming from a lawsuit filed by opponents of his large-scale hog operation that delayed its construction, the Illinois 4th District Appellate Court decided this week.
Robert Young had appealed a ruling of Sangamon Circuit Judge Leslie Graves that he was not entitled to damages. Young previously successfully challenged an injunction request by the Rochester-Buckhart Action Group, which wanted to block expansion of his hog farm.
“The court ruled that we were right, and RBAG was wrong. Now, we will be asking RBAG to pay for the harm that was done,” Tom Immel, Young’s attorney, said Friday.
A hearing in Sangamon County court regarding the amount of damages will be scheduled later. Immel said Young will seek more than $300,000, including legal expenses and income Young and his wife, Sandra, lost while fighting the lawsuit.
The appellate court, in a ruling Tuesday, said Young was “engaged in a lawful business, and the planned expansion of his hog farm was put on hold at plaintiff’s (RBAG’s) behest. Read More
It seems that many times, a lawsuit is filed with the intention to stifle a time sensitive project. And in many of those instances there are very few consequences to the suing party. We see it a lot when it comes to logging, especially after forest fires. There is a very limited amount of time to harvest the burnt timber and some will tie up projects in court long enough for the wood to go to waste. In this case, it appears that this farming family will be able to recoup some of the losses they incurred when the building of their new hog barn was delayed in court. It’s important that there are consequences for filing a lawsuit and losing.
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label lawsuits. Show all posts
Monday, September 14, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Sued by Nature
Sued by the forest
Should nature be able to take you to court?
(Boston Globe / Steve Wacksman)
By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
July 19, 2009
Last February, the town of Shapleigh, Maine, population 2,326, passed an unusual ordinance. Like nearby towns, Shapleigh sought to protect its aquifers from the Nestle Corporation, which draws heavily on the region for its Poland Spring bottled water. Some Maine towns had acquiesced, others had protested, and one was locked in a protracted legal battle.
Shapleigh tried something new - a move at once humble in its method and audacious in its ambition. At a town meeting, residents voted, 114-66, to endow all of the town’s natural assets with legal rights: “Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve within the Town of Shapleigh.” It further decreed that any town resident had “standing” to seek relief for damages caused to nature - permitting, for example, a lawsuit on behalf of a stream.
Shapleigh is one of about a dozen US municipalities to have passed measures declaring that nature itself has rights under the law. And in 2008, when Ecuador adopted a new constitution, it recognized nature’s “right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes.” A campaign is also underway in Europe for a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, which would attempt to enshrine such principles in international law, following the model of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These developments are part of a small but growing movement that aims to reorient the relationship between the earth and the law. Advocates argue that natural objects should not be treated as mere property, vulnerable to exploitation or destruction as owners see fit, but as rights-bearing entities with intrinsic value. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, works with communities such as Shapleigh to protect local ecosystems, and more towns are considering ordinances in the same vein. The Center for Earth Jurisprudence, established in 2006, works with two Florida law schools, developing a legal philosophy based on respect for the planet, and seeking avenues in current law to advance that goal.
“Someone needs to be able to represent the rivers,” says Patricia Siemen, director of the Center for Earth Jurisprudence. “Someone needs to be able to represent the forests.”
Of course, the notion will strike skeptics as preposterous. Would we need to worry about offending litigious shrubs? With a boulder, or a swamp, as a witness in the proceedings? Critics dismiss the idea as grandstanding that could clog the courts with frivolous cases.
But proponents see it as part of an ongoing progression, an expansion of rights that slowly brings about an increasingly just society. After all, not so long ago, slaves and women were in some legal regimes deemed property, just as nature is today. Now we all accept universal human rights. The concept of animal rights has also become familiar, if much more contested. Advocates of this agenda see the extension of rights to ecosystems as the natural next step. And they believe it could spark a profound shift in our relations with nature, leading to more effective environmental protections.
“The language of rights has a great deal of currency. It’s the most powerful of our ethical terms,” says John Baird Callicott, a philosophy professor at the University of North Texas. “Rights shift the burden of proof from those who are defending nature to those who want to exploit it.”
Read More
So my question to this idea that nature has rights would be centered around the responsibilities that go with rights. The rights that humans have been granted also come with a responsibility. If nature can sue us, does nature also have a responsibility to us. Is Mother Nature going to pay us back for the damage she causes? I think it’s a fair question to ask. The next time a tornado tears up a town, maybe nature can reimburse those that were affected.
And did you also notice that they are trying to classify people into two categories now? You are either someone that will defend nature or you are someone who exploits it. What about our need to utilize what nature gives us?
Should nature be able to take you to court?
(Boston Globe / Steve Wacksman)
By Rebecca Tuhus-Dubrow
July 19, 2009
Last February, the town of Shapleigh, Maine, population 2,326, passed an unusual ordinance. Like nearby towns, Shapleigh sought to protect its aquifers from the Nestle Corporation, which draws heavily on the region for its Poland Spring bottled water. Some Maine towns had acquiesced, others had protested, and one was locked in a protracted legal battle.
Shapleigh tried something new - a move at once humble in its method and audacious in its ambition. At a town meeting, residents voted, 114-66, to endow all of the town’s natural assets with legal rights: “Natural communities and ecosystems possess inalienable and fundamental rights to exist, flourish and naturally evolve within the Town of Shapleigh.” It further decreed that any town resident had “standing” to seek relief for damages caused to nature - permitting, for example, a lawsuit on behalf of a stream.
Shapleigh is one of about a dozen US municipalities to have passed measures declaring that nature itself has rights under the law. And in 2008, when Ecuador adopted a new constitution, it recognized nature’s “right to exist, persist, maintain itself and regenerate its own vital cycles, structure, functions and its evolutionary processes.” A campaign is also underway in Europe for a UN Universal Declaration of Planetary Rights, which would attempt to enshrine such principles in international law, following the model of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
These developments are part of a small but growing movement that aims to reorient the relationship between the earth and the law. Advocates argue that natural objects should not be treated as mere property, vulnerable to exploitation or destruction as owners see fit, but as rights-bearing entities with intrinsic value. The Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), a Pennsylvania-based nonprofit, works with communities such as Shapleigh to protect local ecosystems, and more towns are considering ordinances in the same vein. The Center for Earth Jurisprudence, established in 2006, works with two Florida law schools, developing a legal philosophy based on respect for the planet, and seeking avenues in current law to advance that goal.
“Someone needs to be able to represent the rivers,” says Patricia Siemen, director of the Center for Earth Jurisprudence. “Someone needs to be able to represent the forests.”
Of course, the notion will strike skeptics as preposterous. Would we need to worry about offending litigious shrubs? With a boulder, or a swamp, as a witness in the proceedings? Critics dismiss the idea as grandstanding that could clog the courts with frivolous cases.
But proponents see it as part of an ongoing progression, an expansion of rights that slowly brings about an increasingly just society. After all, not so long ago, slaves and women were in some legal regimes deemed property, just as nature is today. Now we all accept universal human rights. The concept of animal rights has also become familiar, if much more contested. Advocates of this agenda see the extension of rights to ecosystems as the natural next step. And they believe it could spark a profound shift in our relations with nature, leading to more effective environmental protections.
“The language of rights has a great deal of currency. It’s the most powerful of our ethical terms,” says John Baird Callicott, a philosophy professor at the University of North Texas. “Rights shift the burden of proof from those who are defending nature to those who want to exploit it.”
Read More
So my question to this idea that nature has rights would be centered around the responsibilities that go with rights. The rights that humans have been granted also come with a responsibility. If nature can sue us, does nature also have a responsibility to us. Is Mother Nature going to pay us back for the damage she causes? I think it’s a fair question to ask. The next time a tornado tears up a town, maybe nature can reimburse those that were affected.
And did you also notice that they are trying to classify people into two categories now? You are either someone that will defend nature or you are someone who exploits it. What about our need to utilize what nature gives us?
Friday, October 31, 2008
Humane Society or Lawsuit Society?
Prop. 2 backers wield lawsuits as weapon
Humane Society says egg board illegally used check-off dollars
Hank Shaw Capital Press
The campaign in favor of Proposition 2 is turning heads among veterans of California's ballot initiative process because it has been unusually litigious.
The "yes" campaign has filed at least five separate lawsuits against its opponents this year.
"I've seen lawsuits before, but not this many," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communications at Sacramento State University. "It's unusual for a proposition."
The Humane Society began the slew of lawsuits by charging that the United Egg Board was illegally using check-off money - normally used for advertising and promotion - to fight Prop. 2. They have won at least the first round in that suit.
It then followed with a series of other suits:
HSUS sued the University of California over a study it did that suggested that passage of Prop. 2 would end conventional egg production and cost jobs. The group said the university did not give them documents concerning the funding of that study in a timely manner.
• The group sued a French Camp egg rancher for allegedly discharging ammonia into the air, creating a nuisance and violating clean-air laws.
• The group sued a San Diego County egg producer for similar pollution-related charges shortly after he became active in the "no" campaign. Humane Society staffer Jennifer Fearing, who is running the "yes" campaign, told the New York Times, "He put a bull's-eye on himself."
• HSUS sued the United Egg Board again, this time for allegedly making false claims about the welfare of conventionally raised chickens. Read More
HSUS has 13 full time lawyers in their organization along with over 1,000 pro bono attorneys across the United States, this organization has been built to file lawsuits and draft legislation to abolish animal agriculture in this country. However, as producers we have something that their $130 million dollar budget can’t touch, and that is our amazing story of food production in this country. Be proud of what you do and share that with our consumers.
Humane Society says egg board illegally used check-off dollars
Hank Shaw Capital Press
The campaign in favor of Proposition 2 is turning heads among veterans of California's ballot initiative process because it has been unusually litigious.
The "yes" campaign has filed at least five separate lawsuits against its opponents this year.
"I've seen lawsuits before, but not this many," said Barbara O'Connor, a professor of political communications at Sacramento State University. "It's unusual for a proposition."
The Humane Society began the slew of lawsuits by charging that the United Egg Board was illegally using check-off money - normally used for advertising and promotion - to fight Prop. 2. They have won at least the first round in that suit.
It then followed with a series of other suits:
HSUS sued the University of California over a study it did that suggested that passage of Prop. 2 would end conventional egg production and cost jobs. The group said the university did not give them documents concerning the funding of that study in a timely manner.
• The group sued a French Camp egg rancher for allegedly discharging ammonia into the air, creating a nuisance and violating clean-air laws.
• The group sued a San Diego County egg producer for similar pollution-related charges shortly after he became active in the "no" campaign. Humane Society staffer Jennifer Fearing, who is running the "yes" campaign, told the New York Times, "He put a bull's-eye on himself."
• HSUS sued the United Egg Board again, this time for allegedly making false claims about the welfare of conventionally raised chickens. Read More
HSUS has 13 full time lawyers in their organization along with over 1,000 pro bono attorneys across the United States, this organization has been built to file lawsuits and draft legislation to abolish animal agriculture in this country. However, as producers we have something that their $130 million dollar budget can’t touch, and that is our amazing story of food production in this country. Be proud of what you do and share that with our consumers.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Smithfield Fights Odor Lawsuits
Smithfield set to fight Mo. lawsuits individually
By Lisa M. Keefe on 4/25/2008 for Meatingplace.com
Smithfield Foods Inc. has decided to litigate a series of lawsuits by residential neighbors of several of its hog farms in Missouri rather than agree to an out-of-court settlement.
In accordance with the court's direction, it will take on the cases one-by-one. The company decided to continue with litigation, after rejecting a $75 million settlement offer by plaintiff's attorneys that would have covered 31 cases brought on behalf of some 275 people.
The residents are suing over the odor produced by the hog operations. The cases originally were filed against Premium Standard Farms Inc., and Smithfield assumed the lawsuits when it bought PSF last year for $671 million.
The pros and cons of settling versus litigating are laid out in a Feb. 25 memo to Smithfield CEO C. Larry Pope by a company executive and one of its outside lawyers. The confidential memo was distributed to the company's Board of Directors in April. It inadvertently wound up in the hands of a reporter at the Kansas City Star, and is now posted on that newspaper's Web site here.
Among the company's considerations is the fact that, among three lawsuits on this issue that already had been litigated, the company had fared far better when the case concerned a single residence, rather than several residences and families, according to the memo.
Also, in fighting the cases one-by-one, the memo notes that the likely length of the litigation would be taxing on plaintiffs' counsel, although it would exact a price on Smithfield, as well, in the form of direct cost, distraction and the need to carry financial reserves related to the lawsuits.
The internal document also notes that the court could decide to aggregate the cases after all, the better to clean up the court's docket and dispose of the cases on a collective basis.
The next case on this matter is set for October. Link (subscription requried)
Modern hog operations have implemented a variety of technologies that have greatly reduced odor problems typically associated with hog production. While we don’t know the specifics of each of these lawsuits, I would imagine that some of the people that are filing these lawsuits will not be happy unless they completely shut down the operations in their area.
By Lisa M. Keefe on 4/25/2008 for Meatingplace.com
Smithfield Foods Inc. has decided to litigate a series of lawsuits by residential neighbors of several of its hog farms in Missouri rather than agree to an out-of-court settlement.
In accordance with the court's direction, it will take on the cases one-by-one. The company decided to continue with litigation, after rejecting a $75 million settlement offer by plaintiff's attorneys that would have covered 31 cases brought on behalf of some 275 people.
The residents are suing over the odor produced by the hog operations. The cases originally were filed against Premium Standard Farms Inc., and Smithfield assumed the lawsuits when it bought PSF last year for $671 million.
The pros and cons of settling versus litigating are laid out in a Feb. 25 memo to Smithfield CEO C. Larry Pope by a company executive and one of its outside lawyers. The confidential memo was distributed to the company's Board of Directors in April. It inadvertently wound up in the hands of a reporter at the Kansas City Star, and is now posted on that newspaper's Web site here.
Among the company's considerations is the fact that, among three lawsuits on this issue that already had been litigated, the company had fared far better when the case concerned a single residence, rather than several residences and families, according to the memo.
Also, in fighting the cases one-by-one, the memo notes that the likely length of the litigation would be taxing on plaintiffs' counsel, although it would exact a price on Smithfield, as well, in the form of direct cost, distraction and the need to carry financial reserves related to the lawsuits.
The internal document also notes that the court could decide to aggregate the cases after all, the better to clean up the court's docket and dispose of the cases on a collective basis.
The next case on this matter is set for October. Link (subscription requried)
Modern hog operations have implemented a variety of technologies that have greatly reduced odor problems typically associated with hog production. While we don’t know the specifics of each of these lawsuits, I would imagine that some of the people that are filing these lawsuits will not be happy unless they completely shut down the operations in their area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)