I was gonna start a new thread for this but then i looked, I mean
really looked, at the front page of the Asylum and was horrified at how many of the threads were started by 'Elinda'. Time to cut back.
I started an Environmental Law class through Coursera last week. This weeks assignment is GMO related....
Here's the scenario:
Quote:
Tina (owner of the Organic Superman Farm) is disturbed by the prospect of using genetically modified crops to grow medicine and recently became furious to learn that bits of genetically engineered substances (including the medicine/protein) from the Millennium Farm’s corn plants have blown over onto the Superman Farm and have been found within the seed corn from which Tina hoped to grow the next year’s crop of organic corn. This means that Tina has to destroy all of her seed corn – and indeed her hopes of ever growing her own seed corn again – lest she sell corn that in fact is like a prescription drug and that could cause all kinds of side effects to those who ate it. Tina wants to file a lawsuit against the New Millennium Farm claiming that its “pharm corn†is a private nuisance under the precedents of the Meadowbrook Swimming Club, Slaird v. Klewers, Madison v. Ducktown Sulphur, Georgia v. Tennessee Copper, Missouri v. Illinois and Sanitary District of Chicago, State of Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and City of Chicago cases (which you can assume are all good precedent in New Columbia) and asking that the court permanently enjoin New Millennium Farm from growing this kind of genetically engineered crop in the open air where it can blow over and pollinate (contaminate) the organic corn on the Superman Farm. For purposes of this assignment, you can assume that neither the U.S. federal government nor the State of New Columbia has enacted any kind of comprehensive statute regulating genetic pharming. Instead, those wishing to try genetic pharming need only obtain an experimental-use permit from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, permits that are granted fairly easily (Millenium Farm has such a permit).
The other cases mentioned were our first weeks. Here's a very quick summation:
-
Albert v. Meadowbrook swimming club - A Country Club has live music nightly all summer long. Due to the morphology of the land the music is amplified out to neighboring homes.
Court finds the Country Club to be a nuisance and orders an injunction.
-
Slaird v. Klewers - A family moves into a neighborhood, has a swimming pool, with all the bells and whistles installed. A neighbor complains of the noise of the diving board, the flood lights and chlorinated water splashing onto their bushes.
Court finds insufficient evidence of a nuisance. Case dismissed. The determination was based on the pool and it's use not being out of the ordinary and, at least partly, on the determination that the plaintiffs were not persons of 'ordinary sensibilities' (they were willy whiners).
-
Madison v. Ducktown Sulfur - A sulfur company set up shop in a rural area of Tennessee. The production of the sulfur was pretty dirty business requiring open air smelthing. Homesteaders in the area reported illness, breathing difficulty and a layers of soot over over every thing. Also the land was pretty much unusable for farming anymore. The folks of Madison sought an injunction against the sulfur company.
Court finds undeniable evidence of nuisance, but doesn't grant an injunction because the defendants cannot reduce their ores in any other manner, an injunction would deprive their rights. The plaintiffs were given monetary compensation.
-
Georgia v Tennessee Copper - Like the last case this is open air mining and smelting however this time it's a state bringing suit against the mining co. located in Tennessee. Georgia claims that sulfur dioxide is crossing over state lines causing crop and forest damage in five Georgia Counties.
Court finds that the mining is a nuisance in Georgia. Also since Georgia is a sovereign body, has a right (and responsibility) to protect it's lands and citizens (more rights than a private citizen) an injunction is issued.
Miss v Ill and Chicago Sanitary District - Chicago tunneled out a channel to the Desplaines River to discharge their sewage away from lake mich and the city. The Desplaines eventually empties into the Mississippi - in Missouri. Missouri claimed that the additional sewage created a greater risk of typhoid fever to residents of St. Louis. Typhoid fever statistics for that area during that time period did not provide any evidence of increased rates contagion.
Court finds insufficient evidence and dismisses the case without prejudice.
-
MI vs US ACoE and City of Chicago - this time the culprit is the highly invasive Asian Carp. The carp is in the river, lots of governmental bodies had been responding to the threat of them getting into the great lakes. The channel built from Chicago to the Mississippi is a clear unblocked route for passage of the carp. Michigan sought immediate relief through closing off the channel.
Court finds that the channel does present a nuisance within the context of the problem. However, they deny a preliminary injunction because the defendant is already taking steps to insure the channel doesn't provide a conduit to the great lakes and a court-ordered injunction could hinder that process.
So, decide the case of Superman Farm based on the findings of these other six cases......
(one page done