And we reverse the denial of the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint and of their request for a permanent injunction because both denials were based on the same mistaken legal conclusions. Red River Spray Service, Inc. v. Nelson, 404 N.W.2d 332, 334 (Minn.App. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn. 1993). Agency, http://www .epa.gov/pm/ (last updated June 28, 2012). Imposing this restriction on a trespass claim is inconsistent with our precedent that provides a remedy to a property owner for any trivial trespass. Romans, 217 Minn. at 180, 14 N.W.2d at 486. The Johnsons do not allege that a tangible object invaded their land. As discussed above, the Johnsons' 2007 trespass claim and claims based on 7 C.F.R. Unlike the plaintiffs in Wendinger, the Johnsons do not claim trespass based on transient odors. 7 C.F.R. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). In asking the Court to recognize a claim of trespass by . Oil Co., No. Our conclusion that the district court properly dismissed the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims based on 7 C.F.R. 2003), review denied (Minn. Aug. 5, 2003). See, e.g., Sime, 213 Minn. at 481, 7 N.W.2d at 328. They asserted that they had to remove some fields from production. The cooperative's counter position, which is that "applied to" does not include unintended residual drift from overspray, is belied by the express language of the regulation. 6511(d). 5 were here. After receiving these test results, the Johnsons took the affected alfalfa field out of organic production for an additional 3 years. Webipad 6th gen silver 32gb with case $160 (wdc > Ashburn) 2.8mi hide this posting restore restore this posting. A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Oil Co. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. In sum, we disagree with the district court that chemical pesticide drift cannot, because of its nature, constitute a trespass. The Johnsons sued Appellant on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se, seeking damages and injunctive relief. We therefore hold that the district court did not err in concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law.10. In deciding whether the regulation is ambiguous, however, we do not construe the regulation in isolation. The email address cannot be subscribed. 18B.07 (2010) by direct[ing] pesticide[s] onto property beyond the boundaries of the target site, using the pesticides in a manner inconsistent with their labels, and endangering the Johnsons' agricultural products. Simply put, the policy concerns that have compelled other jurisdictions to abandon the traditional view of trespass are not present in Minnesota. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law. In order to resolve the interpretation question presented, we must construe the regulation at issue7 C.F.R. The cooperative points to section 205.671 to urge a different holding. 802 N.W.2d at 39192. The Court noted that under 7 C.F.R. The court of appeals expansion of trespass law to include intangible matters may subject countless persons and entities to automatic liability fortrespassabsent any demonstrated injury. Haley v. Forcelle, 669 N.W.2d 48, 55 (Minn.App. at 389. Appeal from the District Court, Stearns County, Kris Davick-Halfen, J. Arlo H. Vande Vegte, Arlo H. Vande Vegte, P.A., Plymouth, MN, for appellants. 7 U.S.C. Because the district court erroneously concluded that the John-sons' 2007 claims cannot withstand summary judgment, the district court erred by refusing to allow the Johnsons to amend their complaint to add the claims related to the 2008 overspray. We have affirmed as factually supported a negligence judgment against a crop duster after its negligent spraying of herbicides resulted in chemical drift from target fields onto a neighboring field, damaging crops. FindLaw.com Free, trusted legal information for consumers and legal professionals, SuperLawyers.com Directory of U.S. attorneys with the exclusive Super Lawyers rating, Abogado.com The #1 Spanish-language legal website for consumers, LawInfo.com Nationwide attorney directory and legal consumer resources. 205.202(b), fail as a matter of law and therefore amending the complaint to include identical claims based on the 2008 incidents would be futile. 32 Catoctin Cir SE Leesburg VA 20175. There is no dispute about the Johnsons' rightful possession of their fields. The Johnsons took this action because they believed that the presence of any amount of pesticide on their organic fields prohibited them from selling crops harvested from these fields as organic. ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73. Moreover, it is not necessary for us to depart from our traditional understanding of trespass because other causes of actionnuisance and negligenceprovide remedies for the type of behavior at issue in this case. 205.202(b) failed as a matter of law, and therefore, reversed the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims; and (2) held that the district court failed to consider whether the Johnsons' non trespass claims that were not based on section 205.202(b) could survive summary judgment, and therefore, affirmed the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims. See Borland, 369 So.2d at 527 (noting, the same conduct on the part of a defendant may, and often does, result in the actionable invasion of exclusive possession of the property and use and enjoyment). Learn more about FindLaws newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. 7 U.S.C. 4 BACKGROUND2 I. Schroeder v. St. Louis Cnty., 708 N.W.2d 497, 507 (Minn. 2006). Elec. Section 205.671 addresses the disqualifying level for unavoidable residual environmental contamination referenced in section 6511 of the OFPA. 205.202(b). We agree with the district court that section 205.202(b) does not regulate the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Oil Co. 817 n.w.2d 693 (minn. 2012) Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied pesticides to farm fields. The Understanding Law Video Lecture Series: Monthly Subscription ($19 / Month) 7 C.F.R. 561.01. Thank you and the best of luck to you on your LSAT exam. 2000) (defining particulate matter as "[m]aterial suspended in the air in the form of minute solid particles or liquid droplets, especially when considered an atmospheric pollutant"). It seems to me that differences in size, quantity, and harmfulness of varying types of particulate matter will have an effect on whether the invasion by the substance causes a trespass. Traditionally, trespasses are distinct from nuisances: [t]he law of nuisance deals with indirect or intangible interference with an owner's use and enjoyment of land, while trespass deals with direct and tangible interferences with the right to exclusive possession of land. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 96. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. As other courts have suggested, the same conduct may constitute both trespass and nuisance. We consider each of these issues in turn. 205 (2012) (NOP). You can opt out at any time by clicking the unsubscribe link in our newsletter. A party may amend a responsive pleading that has been served if that party has leave of the court, and leave "shall be freely given when justice so requires." (Emphasis added). at 391. 7 U.S.C. Highview, 323 N.W.2d at 73. exceeded the 5% tolerance limits established [under the federal organic-certification regulations], produce from these plants could have been sold as `organic'" We review the district court's interpretation of the organic-certification regulation de novo. 2001). Some particles are sufficiently large or dark to be observable, such as dust, dirt, soot, or smoke. United States Envtl. Injunctive relief is a permissible remedy under that statute. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. Greenwood v. Evergreen Mines Co., 220 Minn. 296, 312, 19 N.W.2d 726, 73435 (1945). We review the district court's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion. Webjohnson v paynesville farmers union case briefround nesting side tables set 29 grudnia 2021 / nonna biscotti costco / w union jack pub menu speedway in / Autor Schroedl, 616 N.W.2d 273, 277 (Minn. 2000). 205.202(b) (2012). Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn.2004). PDF United States Court of Appeals The plaintiffs were organic farmers who alleged that The proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the property interest affected. But in cases like Bradley and Borland, the courts call[ ] the intrusion of harmful microscopic particles a trespass and not a nuisance, and then us[e] some of the techniques of nuisance law to weigh the amount and reasonableness of the intrusion. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 96. Before discussing the factual background of this case, it is helpful to briefly summarize the organic farming regulations at issue. Minnesota has adopted the OFPA and the NOP as its state organic farming law. Bd. Liberty University. Website. The subsequent MDA investigation verified that on June 15, 2007, a date when winds were blowing toward the Johnsons' fields at 9 to 21 miles per hour, the Cooperative sprayed Status (diflufenzopyr and dicamba) and Roundup Original (glyphosate) onto a conventional farmer's field immediately adjacent to one of the Johnsons' transitional soybean fields. Cloud, MN, for respondent. 86, 342 P.2d 790, 793 (Or.1959) (suggesting that one explanation for the historical adherence to a distinction between tangible and intangible invasions of land was that science had not yet peered into the molecular and atomic world of small particles). The Court however held that the district court erred when it dismissed the Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims that were not grounded on section 205.202(b). The Johnsons urge us, however, to construe the phrase applied to it to include actions of third parties, such as the pesticide drift that resulted from the Cooperative's spraying activity at issue here. We last address the district court's denial of the Johnsons' permanent injunction request. See 7 U.S.C. Sign up for our free summaries and get the latest delivered directly to you. Both those cases and this one, unlike Wendinger, involved the dispersion of substances that entered into and settled onto land in discernable and allegedly damaging deposits. DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). This determination was based on the court's conclusion that because there was no evidence that any chemical on the Johnsons' crops exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. Whether the Johnsons have alleged a viable claim for trespass is a question of law that we review de novo. If the investigation indicates that the residue detected on the organic product was the result of intentional application of a prohibited substance or the residue is present at levels that are greater than federal regulations prescribe, the product cannot be sold as organic. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. We compared the odors in Wendinger to the "noxious fumes" that were emanating from a wastewater plant in Fagerlie v. City of Willmar, 435 N.W.2d 641, 644 n. 2 (Minn. App. Such invasions may interfere with the landowner's use and enjoyment of her land, but those invasions do not require that the landowner share possession of her land in the way that invasions by physical objects do. Instead of focusing on the intangible nature of pesticide drift, the court of appeals focused on the harm caused by it, stating that pesticide drift will affect the composition of the land. Id. You have successfully signed up to receive the Casebriefs newsletter. at 297 (holding that shotgun pellets that landed on the plaintiff's property could constitute a trespass).7. Actual damages are not an element of the tort of trespass. We recognize that we expressly distinguished Borland and Bradley in our discussion in Wendinger and characterized them as examples of cases in which other jurisdictions, unlike Minnesota, had recognized trespass actions by particulate matter. Id. As to the trespass claim, the court of appeals concluded that the district court read too much into Wendinger. . Copyright 2023, Thomson Reuters. In the 1990s, Oluf and Debra Johnson began the three-year process of converting their conventional family farm to a certified-organic farm to realize the higher market prices for organic produce and seeds. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE VI, 10. See 7 C.F.R. The district court denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims based on the 2008 incidents because amendment would be futile. This ruling was based on the court's conclusions that Minnesota does not recognize a claim for trespass by particulate matter and that the Johnsons could not prove any negligence per se or nuisance damages based on 7 C.F.R. 205.202(b) (2012) cover instances of pesticide drift, thereby, justifying certain of plaintiff organic farmers Johnsons nuisance and negligence per se claims for damages? You can explore additional available newsletters here. 205.202(c) and 7 C.F.R. at 38889 (citing Borland v. Sanders Lead Co., 369 So.2d 523 (Ala.1979); Bradley v. Am. Sime v. Jensen, 213 Minn. 476, 481, 7 N.W.2d 325, 328 (1942); see also Romans v. Nadler, 217 Minn. 174, 18081, 14 N.W.2d 482, 486 (1944) (citing Whittaker v. Stangvick, 100 Minn. 386, 111 N.W. See Ryan v. Hennepin Cnty., 224 Minn. 444, 448, 29 N.W.2d 385, 387 (1947) ( Injunctive relief is a remedy and not, in itself, a cause of action, and a cause of action must exist before injunctive relief may be granted. (citation omitted)). The district court concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim failed as a matter of law, relying on the court of appeals decision in Wendinger v. Forst Farms Inc., 662 N.W.2d 546, 550 (Minn.App.2003), which held that Minnesota does not recognize trespass by particulate matter.5 The district court also concluded that all of the Johnsons' negligence per se and nuisance claims failed as a matter of law because the Johnsons lacked evidence of damages. E .g., In re Cities of Annandale & Maple Lake, 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.2007) (considering whether a federal regulation was ambiguous). Case brief Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Co-op Oil Comp., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012) Facts: Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company is a member owned farm that has products and services, among other things, applies pesticides to farm fields. Respondents Oluf and Debra Johnsons are organic farmers. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. The MDA did not observe any plant injury to the alfalfa field or plants, grass and weeds, but chemical testing revealed the presence, at minimal levels, of chloropyrifos, the active ingredient in another pesticide, Lorsban Advanced. 6511and the corresponding NOP regulation7 C.F.R. The states may adopt the federal standards or they may impose more restrictive requirements governing products sold as organic. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. That regulation reads: Any field or farm parcel from which harvested crops are intended to be sold, labeled, or represented as organic, must: (b) Have had no prohibited substances, as listed in 205.105, applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop [. Filed: August 1, 2012 . 205.400. The compliance provision in the OFPA statute7 U.S.C. 6511(c)(2). I also dissent from the court's interpretation of 7 C.F.R. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 6263, 126 S.Ct. But to the extent that the amended complaint alleges claims for the 2008 incidents that are not based in trespass or on 7 C.F.R. Minn.Stat. See Minn. Stat. 205.202(b) (2012). The errant dispersion of pesticides, which contain chemicals designed to affect the land, can interfere with possession. Oil Co., 802 N.W.2d 383 (Minn.App.2011). address. Intro to Legal Research. Therefore, I would allow the suit to go forward and permit the record to be developed to resolve that question. Here, on the record presented at this stage in the litigation, it is not clear to me whether the pesticides in this case constituted a trespass. of Mapleview, 293 Minn. 106, 10809, 196 N.W.2d 626, 62829 (1972); Huber v. City of Blue Earth, 213 Minn. 319, 322, 6 N.W.2d 471, 473 (1942). Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetexts legal research suite. 7 U.S.C. We turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. In terms of size, the largest inhalable coarse particles are 10 micrometers in diameter; that is one-seventh the diameter of a strand of human hair. We begin with a discussion of the tort of trespass. The Court also explained that including intangible matters as causes oftrespasswould also impose on the property owners the obligation to demonstrate that the invasion causes some consequence. The regulation says nothing about what should happen if the residue testing shows less than five-percent contamination. 6503(a) (directing the Secretary of Agriculture to establish an organic certification program for producers and handlers of agricultural products). The district court dismissed the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims because the court concluded that the Johnsons had not proven damages. The regulation, as part of the organic-certification regulation scheme of the National Organic Program (NOP), limits the circumstances in which farmers may label and sell produce as "organic." Oil Co. 817 n.w.2d 693 (minn. 2012) Appellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied pesticides to farm fields. WebJohnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Co., 817 N.W.2d 693 (2012): Case Brief Summary - Quimbee Study Aids Case Briefs Overview Casebooks Case 2(a)(1) (2010). The Johnsons claim that the pesticide drift caused them: (1) economic damages because they had to take the contaminated fields out of organic production for 3 years pursuant to 7 C.F.R. The MDA informed the Johnsons that there was no tolerance for diflufenzopyr in soybeans (organic, transitional, or conventional) and that, pending chemical testing, the MDA would determine if there [would] be any harvest prohibitions on the Johnsons' soybeans. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, Appellant. WebCase Nos. Johnson, 802 N.W.2d at 390. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the conduct about which the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota. (540) 454-8089. They alleged that the drift has caused "substantial inconveniences" because they are required to report the contamination and it affects their crop rotations, organic-farm planning, and record keeping. - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students. Rather, when we interpret a rule, we consult the language itself, the specific context in which that language is used, and the broader context of the [rule] as a whole. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 341, 117 S.Ct. The MDA investigated and again cited the cooperative for illegally spraying, and the Johnsons again took the affected fields out of organic production for three years. The difference between ordinary negligence and negligence per se is that in negligence per se, a statutory duty of care is substituted for the ordinary prudent person standard such that a violation of a statute is conclusive evidence of duty and breach. Gradjelick v. Hance, 646 N.W.2d 225, 231 n. 3 (Minn.2002). 805 N.W.2d 14 - DOMAGALA v. ROLLAND, Supreme Court of WebCase brief Johnson .docx 3 pages Question 1- quiz.docx 1 pages PLST 201 Internet Assignment #3.docx 10 pages Final Research Project PLST 201.docx 2 pages garratt v dailey case brief.docx 10 pages Final Research Project - Copy.docx 2 pages Minn Minors.docx 1 pages Statutory Research Assignment plst 201 #1.docx 2 pages Case WebMinnesota.gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 (Minn.1982). WebCase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 272. The court of appeals forged new ground in this case and extended Minnesota trespass jurisprudence when it held that a trespass could occur through the entry of intangible objects, such as the particulate matter at issue here. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. We reverse the dismissal of their nuisance and negligence-per-se claims because the dismissal resulted from a misreading of the five-percent-contaminant regulation and the consequently erroneous holding that the Johnsons failed as a matter of law to show any damages. 6507(b)(1). We instead conclude that applied to it used in section 205.202(b), when read in the context of the OFPA and the NOP regulations as a whole, unambiguously refers to prohibited substances that the producer intentionally puts on a field from which crops are intended to be sold as organic.14, When the regulation is read in the context of the NOP and the OFPA as a whole and given the statutory scheme's focus on regulating the practices of producers, we conclude that section 205.202(b) does not cover the Cooperative's pesticide drift. Section 205.671 provides that a crop cannot be sold as organic [w]hen residue testing detects prohibited substances at levels that are greater than 5 percent of the Environmental Protection Agency's [EPA] tolerance for the specific residue. 7 C.F.R. Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 193, 90 L.Ed. 205.400(f)(1). Johnson again contacted the MDA, and after investigating the MDA required Johnson to plow under a 175-foot wide strip of soybeans running the entire length of his field. A district court should permit amendments unless it finds that the adverse party would be prejudiced. 205.202(b). But because the district court failed to consider whether the Johnsons' non trespass claims that were not based on 7 C.F.R. But there is no statute of limitations difference in Minnesota. Our rules of statutory interpretation (which we apply to regulations) do not permit us to add words to a regulation whether the words were purposefully omitted or inadvertently overlooked. Premier Bank v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Minn.2010). But the court of appeals reversed, holding that the phrase applied to it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift, and that therefore OCIA had discretion to decertify the Johnsons' soybean field under section 205.202(b). See Markham v. Cabell, 326 U.S. 404, 409, 66 S.Ct. Aegis Insurance Services, Inc. v. 7 World Trade Co., L.P. Howell v. Hamilton Meats & Provisions, Inc. Under that settlement, the cooperative paid damages and agreed to give the Johnsons 24 hours' notice before it sprayed in any adjacent field. Among numerous other requirements, the NOP provides that land from which crops are intended to be sold as organic must [h]ave had no prohibited substances applied to it for a period of 3 years immediately preceding harvest of the crop. 7 C.F.R. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that the Johnsons' trespass claim and claim for damages based on 7 C.F.R. I disagree with the breadth of the court's holding. WebCase Brief (19,287) Case Opinion (19,683) Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 802 N.W.2d at 391 (citing 7 C.F.R. The court's reading makes no sense because no matter who applies the prohibited pesticide and no matter how the pesticide is applied, whether by drift or otherwise, the end product will be no less contaminated and no less in violation of regulations limiting such contamination. This formulation of trespass, however, conflicts with our precedent defining the elements of trespass. We disagree. Defendant was a company that sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the plaintiffs fields. This Court evaluated the issue by discussing the nature and purpose oftrespasslaw which is to prevent the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following, Introduction to Negligence, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Elements of Negligence, Duty to Protect from third persons: Defendants relationship with the third person, Introduction to Products Liability, Design Defects, Introduction to Products Liability, Warning or informational defects, Introduction to Negligence, Elements of Negligence, Compensatory and Punitive Damages, Introduction to negligence, elements of negligence, negligence per se, Introduction to defamation, Intentional infliction of emotional distress, privileges and defenses to defamation, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Introduction to Professional and Medical Liability, Voluntariness, Duty Arising From a Promise Undertaking or Relationship, Invasion of Privacy, Public Disclosure of Private Fact, Nuisance, Trespass, Trespass to land and Chattels, Introduction to proximate cause, Relationship between proximate cause and plaintiffs Fault, Proximate Cause I, Proximate Cause II, Contribution in a joint and several liability system, Negligent infliction of emotional distress, LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam). A10-1596& A10-2135 State of Minnesota Supreme Court Oluf Johnson and Debra Johnson, vs. Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company, APPELLANT'S BRIEF AND ADDENDUM Date of Filing of Court of Appeals Decision: July 25, 2011 Kevin F. Gray (#185516) Respondents, Appellant. . In doing so, it found that there was no harm to the Johnsons and no "wrongful conduct" by the cooperative. See 7 U.S.C. See id. Defendant claimed that the invasion of particulate matter does not constitute atrespassin Minnesota as a matter of law. 205.202(b), and (2) denying the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint to include claims for the 2008 incidents to the extent those claims are not based on trespass or 7 C.F.R. Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 313, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 (1974). It is the right of the owner in possession to exclusive possession that is protected by an action for trespass. 205.202(b). STAR Ctrs., Inc. v. Faegre & Benson, L.L.P., 644 N.W.2d 72, 77 (Minn.2002). Smelting & Ref. The Johnsons argue that the Cooperative is liable, under nuisance and negligence per se theories, for damages resulting from the destruction of these soybeans.16 Because the district court failed to address whether there were any genuine issues of material fact on this aspect of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence per se claims, we hold that the court erred when it dismissed these claims. The phrase "applied to" is not defined in the regulations, but we hold that it implicitly includes unintentional pesticide drift. In other words, the Johnsons did not market soybeans harvested from this field as organic for an additional 3 years. We have previously held that invasion by water constitutes a trespass and invasion by a bullet constitutes a trespass. WebAppellant Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company (Cooperative) was a member owned farm products and services provider that, among other things, applied As the Johnsons read section 205.202(b), any amount of pesticide, no matter how it came into contact with the field, would require that the field be taken out of organic production for 3 years. The court of appeals reversed. Id. Anderson v. State, Dep't of Natural Res., 693 N.W.2d 181, 186 (Minn. 2005). In the absence of actual damages, the trespasser is liable for nominal damages. Minn. R. Civ. The Johnsons also allege that the pesticide drift constitutes negligence per se, asserting that the Cooperative violated Minn.Stat. In other words, the tort of trespass is committed when a person intentionally enters or causes direct and tangible entry upon the land in possession of another. Dobbs, supra, 50 at 95 (footnotes omitted).
Night Owl Dvr Hard Reset,
Daniel Keane Son Of General Jack Keane,
Gerald Mcewen Geologist,
What Does In Care Of Mean On Property Taxes,
Articles J
