Agricultural Litigation

December 13, 2023

“This case presents an unusual legal challenge of the highest order of complexity.” That’s how both the trial court and the Minnesota Court of Appeals described a historic case Cory Genelin won on behalf of a farm family in 2023.

In previous litigation, the other side had established that they entered into an 8-year farm partnership with Cory’s clients. In this litigation, the other side tried to claim one half of the farm’s profits and one half of all land, facilities, and equipment purchased by Cory’s clients over those 8 years. Such an outcome would actually have been fairly standard under Minnesota partnership law.

Cory was able to convince the court that the partnership established by the other side was unique and that his clients owned all of the land, facilities and equipment and were entitled to all profits above $72,000 per year paid to the other side. This unique solution was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Minnesota Supreme Court denied review.

See Dakota County Court File No. 19HA-CV-17-3360
See Minnesota Court of Appeals A22-1393 (March 13, 2023)
See Minnesota Supreme Court A22-1393 (June 28, 2023)

In 2022 Cory collected a $2.1M recovery for a Martin County veterinarian after one-week jury trial.

Cory represented a veterinarian who had agreed to house and care for 72 horses that had been seized by a county sheriff’s department and a humane society. After months of care, the humane society refused to pay the bill. Eventually, the humane society tried to unilaterally declare that the horses were the veterinarian’s property and the veterinarian’s problem. The humane society refused pay a single penny and the veterinarian was left to care for the horses at her own expense.

The veterinarian started litigation with another firm but hired Cory after things weren’t moving as fast as she wished. By the time of trial, the veterinarian had cared for the horses for over two years while claiming the customary rate of $25 per animal per day.

After a week long trial, the jury verdict awarded damages in the maximum amount allowed by the verdict form.

See Martin County Court File No. 46-CV-19-1224

Associated Attorneys