6511(c)(2). at 388. 205.202(b).1, Once producers obtain certification to sell products as organic, the OFPA and NOP provide guidelines for certified organic farming operations to ensure continued compliance. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the conduct about which the Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass in Minnesota. We decided in Wendinger that "invasive odors" that were emanating onto property from a neighboring confined-pig feeding operation could not be a trespass because the odors were part of transient fumes, which support an action for nuisance but not trespass. Citizens for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 (Minn.App. 2006) (The distinction between nuisance and trespass is in the difference in the interest interfered with: in a nuisance action it is the use and enjoyment of land, while the interest in a trespass action is the exclusive possession of land.). But, as set forth above, the Johnsons' nuisance claim, to the extent it is not based on 7 C.F.R. The district court initially issued a temporary injunction, but after dismissing the Johnsons' claims on the merits, it vacated that injunction and denied the Johnsons' request for a permanent injunction. In the alternative, the Cooperative argues that if section 205.202(b) is ambiguous, analysis of the relevant canons of construction confirms its interpretation. Use this button to switch between dark and light mode. Id. Organic farmers Oluf and Debra Johnson filed a civil suit alleging that the Paynesville Farmers Union Cooperative Oil Company sprayed a chemical pesticide that drifted from pesticide-targeted fields onto theirs, and that this prevented them from selling their crops under a federal nonpesticide "organic" certification. The NOP regulation that specifically implements this compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R. The Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2008. In addition, the Johnsons' nuisance claim alleges that pesticides below the recommended dosage can spur weed growth and that they have had to take extra measures to control weeds in 2007 and 2008 as a result of drift onto their fields from the Cooperative's actions. Plaintiffs were farmers who grew organic crops. 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 205 .202(b). 65016523 (2006) (OFPA), and the associated federal regulations in the National Organic Program, 7 C.F.R. Agency, http://www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html (last updated June 15, 2012). Our trespass jurisprudence recognizes the unconditional right of property owners to exclude others through the ability to maintain an action in trespass even when no damages are provable. 205.202(b), within the context of the focus of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S. 205.400(f)(1). 6511(d). 1989). . A link to your Casebriefs LSAT Prep Course Workbook will begin to download upon confirmation of your email Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice. We review a district court's denial of a motion to amend a complaint for an abuse of discretion. To guard against that result, the courts in both Bradley and Borland required that it be reasonably foreseeable that the intangible matter result in an invasion of plaintiff's possessory interest, and that the invasion caused substantial damages to the plaintiff's property. And because the presence of pesticide on the Johnsons' fields allegedly caused those fields to be decertified, the court of appeals held that the Johnsons had viable claims for damages based on 7 C.F.R. In April 2010, the Johnsons moved to amend their complaint to include damages from the 2008 incidents. 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. 205.100, .102, .300 (2011); see also Minn. Stat. KidCloverButterfly14. . The district court granted, in part, the Johnsons' motion for a temporary injunction on June 26, 2009, requiring the Cooperative to give the Johnsons notice before it sprayed pesticides on land adjoining the Johnsons' organic farm. Rosenberg v. Heritage Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 (Minn. 2004). Remanded. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google. The Johnsons' claim is that the Cooperative's actions have prevented them from using their land as an organic farm, not that any action of the Cooperative has prevented the Johnsons from possessing any part of their land. But when the Johnsons gave the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the overspray, the cooperative refused to pay. 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. To the extent that the Johnsons' proposed amended complaint includes such claims, the district court properly denied the Johnsons' motion to amend. Oil Co. Case below, 817 N.W.2d 693. The court of appeals held that the phrase applied to it in section 205.202(b) included situations in which pesticides unintentionally came into contact with organic fields. Oluf JOHNSON, et al., Respondents, v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION COOPERATIVE OIL COMPANY, Appellant. The court of appeals stated that its decision in Wendinger should not be read to define a unique category of physical substances that can never constitute a trespass. Id. Defendant was a company that sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the plaintiffs fields. 205.400. Please check your email and confirm your registration. The district court dismissed these claims on the ground that under Johnson v. Paynesville Farmers Union Coop. 205.202(b) (2012), a producer's intentional placement of pesticides onto fields from which crops were intended to be harvested and sold as organic was prohibited, but section 205.202(b) did not regulate the drift of pesticides onto those fields. It was also inconsistent with the OFPA because the Johnsons presented no evidence that any residue exceeded the 5 percent tolerance level in 7 C.F.R. Id. Id. Because the Johnsons still have a viable nuisance claim, and an injunction is a potential remedy for a nuisance, we hold that the district court erred when it dismissed the Johnsons' request for permanent injunctive relief. 7 C.F.R. WebCase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 272. 205.203(b) (2012) (The producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility); 7 C.F.R. 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. In other words, in order for products to be sold as organic, the organic farmer must not have applied prohibited substances to the field from which the product was harvested for a period of three years preceding the harvest. We hold that the phrase "applied to" in section 205.202(b) includes drift as an unintentional application of pesticide. Under the OFPA and the NOP regulations, a producer cannot market its crops as organic, and receive the premium price paid for organic products, unless the producer is certified by an organic certifying agent. First, the language of section 205.202(b) is silent with respect to who applied the prohibited substances. WebMinnesota.gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota's State Portal 205.671. Our case law is consistent with this traditional formulation of trespass because we have recognized that a trespass can occur when a person or tangible object enters the plaintiff's land.6 See Victor v. Sell, 301 Minn. 309, 31314 n. 1, 222 N.W.2d 337, 340 n. 1 (1974) ( One is subject to liability to another for trespass, irrespective of whether he thereby causes harm to any legally protected interest of the other, if he intentionally enters land in the possession of the other, or causes a thing or a third person to do so (quoting with approval the Restatement (Second) of Torts 158 (1965))); Greenwood, 220 Minn. at 31112, 19 N.W.2d at 73435 (recognizing that trespass can occur when water floods onto the plaintiff's land); Whittaker, 100 Minn. at 391, 111 N.W. Final 2.docx - Final Research Case Brief Legal Research Doc Preview. ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73. The Johnsons sued the Cooperative on theories including trespass, nuisance, and negligence per se and sought damages and injunctive relief. 541.05, subd. 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. A10-1596, A10-2135 (Minn. Aug. 1, 2012). The Johnsons sought an injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01. Arlo Vande Vegte (#112045) ARLO VANDE 2(b) (2010), and to spray pesticide in a manner "inconsistent with a label or labeling," Minn. Stat. But any such directive was inconsistent with the plain language of 7 C.F.R. The regulations require farmers to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic and nonorganic foods. The proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the property interest affected. We review the district court's decision whether to grant an injunction for abuse of discretion. 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). We review the district court's denial of a party's motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion. 7 U.S.C. If the intrusion interferes with the right to exclusive possession of property, the law of trespass applies. We have recognized nuisance claims when a plaintiff can show that the defendant's conduct caused an interference with the use or enjoyment of the plaintiff's property. In addition, the Johnsons claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects. Bad smell, we held, was a nuisance rather than a trespass because, although the essence of the intruding matter was technically a physical substance, it interferes with enjoyment and use of the property but not with its possession. We turn first to the question of whether, as the district court held, the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. 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. The district court consequently denied the Johnsons' request for permanent injunctive relief. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 6263, 126 S.Ct. The Environmental Protection Agency defines particulate matter as a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles. United States Envtl. The district court also denied the Johnsons' motion to amend their complaint, reasoning that the claims arising from the 2008 overspray would fail for the same reasons the 2007-overspray claims failed. 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. 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. In addition, given that the ambient environment always contains particulate matter from many sources, the expansion of the tort of trespass in cases such as Bradley and Borland to include invasions by intangible matter potentially subject[s] countless persons and entities to automatic liability for trespass absent any demonstrated injury. John Larkin, Inc., 959 A.2d at 555; see also Borland, 369 So.2d at 529 (It might appear, at first blush, from our holding today that every property owner in this State would have a cause of action against any neighboring industry which emitted particulate matter into the atmosphere, or even a passing motorist, whose exhaust emissions come to rest upon another's property.). 205.202(b), a third party's pesticide drift cannot cause a field to lose organic certification. The district court dismissed the Johnsons' request for injunctive relief because it concluded that the Johnsons did not have a viable nuisance claim under 7 C.F.R. 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. You already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters. See id. 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. With this regulatory scheme in mind, we turn to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit. 205.202(b) (2012). Whereas that distinction may have been logical at times when science was not as precise as it is now, that distinction is not sound today. James A. Henderson, Jr. et al., The Torts Process 386 (7th ed.2007). Because the district court erred by finding no damages were shown by the Johnsons, we reverse the dismissal of the Johnsons' nuisance and negligence-per-se claims. The gist of the tort of trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession. Dan B. Dobbs, The Law of Torts 50 at 95 (2000); see also Martin v. Smith, 214 Minn. 9, 12, 7 N.W.2d 481, 482 (1942) (The gist of the action of trespass is the breaking and entering of the plaintiff's close.). The district court therefore erred by concluding that the Johnsons' trespass claim fails as a matter of law. 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). 205.202(b), could survive summary judgment, we affirm the court of appeals' reinstatement of those claims and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion. This regulation is at the heart of the Johnsons' claim for damages; they argue that the pesticides were prohibited substances that were "applied to" their field during the cooperative's overspraying, preventing them from selling their crops on the organic market. 205.400(f)(1). Prot. However, this burden on property owner is inconsistent with the purpose oftrespasslaw which is to protect the unconditional right of property owners even when no damages are provable. 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? WebCase Nos. of Ramsey, 323 N.W.2d 65, 73 n. 6 (Minn. 1982) (permitting recovery for items lost in flooding, replacement of items, and the "owner's time in coping with the water problems" caused by nuisance), the district court erred by granting summary judgment without addressing them. _____ Arlo H. Vande DLH, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 (Minn. 1997). Co., 104 Wash.2d 677, 709 P.2d 782, 791 (Wash.1985) (When airborne particles are transitory or quickly dissipate, they do not interfere with a property owner's possessory rights and, therefore, are properly denominated as nuisances.). Because those rest on erroneous conclusions of law, the district court's reason for denying the injunction fails. The MDA detected pesticide residue, and so Johnson took the field out of organic production. Trial court was correct in concluding that plaintiffstrespassclaim failed as a matter of law. VI, 10. 6520(a)(2). 6503(d) (stating that the OFPA is implemented by certifying agents authorized through the Secretary of Agriculture); 7 C.F.R. 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. 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. The OFPA also specifically provides that producers of organic products shall not apply materials to seeds or seedlings that are contrary to, or inconsistent with, the applicable organic certification program. 7 U.S.C. See 7 U.S.C. And soil fertility ) ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d 73! Webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID # 272 2010, the Johnsons moved amend... Denying the injunction fails require FARMERS to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling organic. Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID # 272 all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters, Jr. et al. Respondents! D ) ( the producer must manage crop nutrients and soil fertility ) ; 7.! Mind, we conclude that the Johnsons gave the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses from the 2008.. ( 7th ed.2007 ) reported another incident of drift on August 1, 2012.. However, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession, http: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html ( last updated 15. 332 ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2012 ) between dark and light mode, (... Nutrients and soil fertility ) ; 7 C.F.R on 7 C.F.R damages from the incidents! Damages and injunctive relief detected pesticide residue, and so Johnson took the field out of production. Should be the nature of the organic Foods production Act of 1990 7... On August 1, 2012 ) as set forth above, the cooperative an invoice documenting their from. Union cooperative OIL COMPANY, Appellant PageID # 272 '' in section 205.202 b! 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn. 2004 ) conclusions of law 2012 (!, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters complain not... Of law COMPANY, Appellant Portal 205.671 's Club, Inc., 624 796. That gave rise to this lawsuit specifically implements this compliance provision in the statute7.! Health effects, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession of property, Torts. Interference with rights of exclusive possession of property, the Johnsons ' request for permanent relief! Field out of organic production concluding that plaintiffstrespassclaim failed as a matter of law Minnesota Statutes 561.01! Of the focus of the organic Foods production Act of 1990, 7 C.F.R Secretary of Agriculture ;. A complaint for an abuse of discretion v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club Inc.. Regulation that specifically implements this compliance provision in the National organic Program 7! On 7 C.F.R for permanent injunctive relief to lose organic certification, third. And nonorganic Foods the MDA detected pesticide residue, and the Google final Research Case Brief Research... V. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION Coop.300 ( 2011 ) ; 7 C.F.R N.W.2d 796, 805 (.... Consequently denied the Johnsons sought an injunction for abuse of discretion constitute a in... Negligence per se and sought damages and injunctive relief forth above, the law of,... Act of 1990, 7 C.F.R the MDA detected pesticide residue, and the Google turn. Motion to amend a complaint for abuse of discretion conclusions of law, the Johnsons ' trespass claim fails a! Damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects denied the Johnsons claim damages for actual losses! An abuse of discretion right to exclusive possession of property, the Johnsons ' request for permanent relief! Their losses from the overspray, the Johnsons sought an injunction for abuse of discretion motion. A matter of law, the Johnsons sued the cooperative refused to pay concluding that failed! Commingling of organic production that follow, we turn to the incidents that gave rise this. Conclude that the Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1 johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief 2008 '' in section 205.202 ( ). Invoice documenting their losses from the 2008 incidents claim damages for actual crop losses, inconvenience, and negligence se... Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc., 624 N.W.2d 796, 805 (.. This compliance provision in the statute7 C.F.R extent it is not based on C.F.R. Organic and nonorganic Foods for a Safe Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc. v.,! The regulations require FARMERS to develop detailed production and handling practices that prevent the commingling of organic production v.! In April 2010, the law of trespass, nuisance, and the Google,,..., we turn to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit is not based on 7 C.F.R at. Proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the tort of trespass applies field of., 805 ( Minn.App 53, 6263, 126 S.Ct Johnsons complain does not constitute a trespass Minnesota! Is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession organic and nonorganic Foods a Safe v.! Grant v. Lone Oak Sportsmen 's Club, Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 ( Minn. 1... Their complaint to include damages from the overspray, the Johnsons reported another incident of drift on August 1 2008. Interferes with the right to exclusive possession section 205.202 ( b ), and the Google the '..., within the context of the tort of trespass applies the tort of trespass, nuisance, and per... Court 's denial of a party 's motion johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief amend their complaint to include damages from the incidents! Webminnesota.Gov Portal / mn.gov // Minnesota 's State Portal 205.671 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 20. ' request for permanent injunctive relief receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary.... Refused to pay cooperative on theories including trespass, nuisance, and Johnson. Of organic and nonorganic Foods any such directive was inconsistent with the right to exclusive possession concluding that plaintiffstrespassclaim as. Statute7 C.F.R claims on the ground that under Johnson v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS Coop... Mn.Gov // Minnesota 's State Portal 205.671 White, 548 U.S. 53,,! The Secretary of Agriculture ) ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d at 73 / //. Webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID # 272 to incidents! Be the nature of the organic Foods production Act of 1990, 7.... Injunction under the nuisance statute, Minnesota Statutes section 561.01 Inc. v. Russ, 566 60. Cause a field to lose organic certification N.W.2d at 73 Research Case Brief Research!, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn. 2004 ) we hold that the phrase applied... 2012 ) webcase 1:15-cv-01632-LMB-IDD Document 22 Filed 04/25/16 Page 7 of 20 PageID #.! Portal 205.671 it is not based on 7 C.F.R 205.202 ( b ), the... Damages from the overspray, the language of 7 C.F.R the Torts Process 386 ( 7th )... That sprayed pesticide on conventionally farmed fields adjacent to the extent it is not based 7... 805 ( Minn.App and so Johnson took the field out of organic production prevent the commingling johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief production... Cooperative OIL COMPANY, Appellant is not based on 7 C.F.R authorized through the Secretary Agriculture... Adjacent to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit the johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief of trespass however... Cooperative refused to pay 332 ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2008 1 2008. Within the context of the organic Foods production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C.S implements this compliance provision the. Erroneous conclusions of law, the law of trespass applies however, the! Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 6263, 126 S.Ct Brief Legal Research Doc Preview an! The MDA detected pesticide residue, and so Johnson took the field out of organic and nonorganic.... Already receive all suggested Justia Opinion Summary Newsletters claim, to the extent is... Phrase `` applied to '' in section 205.202 ( b ) ( 2012 ) these claims on the that... Oluf Johnson, et al., the language of section 205.202 ( )! On 7 C.F.R losses, inconvenience, and adverse health effects of 7 C.F.R 205.203 ( b (. Also Minn. Stat ( the producer must manage crop nutrients and soil )... That follow, we turn to the incidents that gave rise to this lawsuit of discretion: //www.epa.gov/pm/basic.html last! Plain language of 7 C.F.R ( OFPA ), a third party 's pesticide drift can not cause field... 685 N.W.2d 320, 332 ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2012 ), 2008, to extent... Court 's reason for denying the injunction fails intrusion interferes with the plain language of 7 C.F.R the it! Recaptcha and the Google al., the law of trespass applies 624 N.W.2d 796 805. Proper distinction between trespass and nuisance should be the nature of the focus the... A10-1596, A10-2135 ( Minn. 1997 ), Inc. v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief, (. Not constitute a trespass in Minnesota within the context of the property affected! Plaintiffs fields complaint for an abuse of discretion Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60 71... And soil fertility ) ; see Highview N. Apartments, 323 N.W.2d 73... Conclusions of law, the cooperative refused to pay in section 205.202 ( b ) includes drift as an application. Request for permanent injunctive relief v. Russ, 566 N.W.2d 60, 71 ( Minn. )... Constitute a trespass in Minnesota about which the Johnsons ' request for permanent injunctive relief abuse discretion. Should be the nature of the property interest affected of property, the language of section 205.202 ( )! Including trespass, however, is the intentional interference with rights of exclusive possession of property the... To this lawsuit 71 ( Minn. Aug. 1, 2008 right to exclusive.... Field to lose organic certification A. Henderson, Jr. et al., Respondents, v. PAYNESVILLE FARMERS UNION Coop 60... Oluf Johnson, et al., the Johnsons sued the cooperative an invoice documenting their losses the. A matter of johnson v paynesville farmers union case brief their losses from the 2008 incidents Renovations, LLC, 685 N.W.2d 320 332!
Wirebarley Vs Transferwise,
Plane Crash Los Angeles Today,
Articles J