We’re rewarding the question askers & reputations are being recalculated! Read more.
4

Maybe, but it is not an easy thing to do. See MARSH v BAXTER [2014] WASC 187. To be successful the plaintiff would need to prove a failure to observe a duty of care (which would be difficult if regulations on GM crops had been followed) and some actual damage flowing from it.


4

Monsanto has never sued for mere wind-blown seed let alone inadvertent cross-pollination and they claim that they will never do so. They say: [I]t has never been, nor will it be, Monsanto’s policy to exercise its patent rights where trace amounts of our patented seeds or traits are present in a farmer’s fields as a result of inadvertent means In OSGATA ...


2

Guilt is a concept of criminal law. In this case, if you do the prohibited thing, you are ineligible for certain USDA benefits. Under 7 CFR 12.4(a)(2-3), triggers include producing an agricultural commodity on a wetland converted after 12/23/85, or after 10/28/90 "converting" a wetland including removing woody vegetation to enable agriculture. Paragraph (c) ...


2

I will draw on Washington law (which is, coincidentally, next to a portion of Canada). There are state law regulating noxious weeds, starting with and centered around RCW 17.10. There is a list of weeds, statutorily codified in WAC 16-750 (which also states penalties for violation), and a quarantine list in chapter 16-752. Tying this all together are the ...


2

To Nate Eldrege: Monsanto v Schmeiser 2004 SCC 34 is an example where the defendant claimed that the infringement was inadvertent, but lost the case. See para 60-68 for a summary of why the trial judge rejected Schmeiser's claim that the concentration of Roundup-resistant seed was inadvertant. In Canada, possession of a patented product for trade brings the ...


2

The most such a "Century Farm" designation gives is a title that carries no legal weight or privileges; having the "title" of being the owner of or resident on a Century Farm won't get you out of a traffic ticket or allow you to flog recalcitrant farm workers in the same ways that past nobility could do, and can no longer do. In some cases, states (and the ...


1

In the lower court ruling behind US v. Park, the court recites various interpretive truisms: The legal effect of an unambiguous written document must be decided by the trial court as a question of law. If, however, the instrument of conveyance is ambiguous, interpretation of the instrument is a matter of fact for the trier of fact. Benninger v. ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible