Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Stefanie Jill Fogel
In 2008, the FDA issued a warning that tomatoes from Texas and New Mexico might be contaminated with salmonella, but did not prohibit their sale. In the wake of plummeting tomato sales, a group of growers sued the US government for compensation for a regulatory taking. On September 18, a judge in the US Court of Federal Claims dismissed the complaint. While the FDA issued a warning, the judge ruled, no property was “taken” since the government did not prohibit tomato sales. According to the decision, “[a]dvisory pronouncements, even those with significant financial impact on the marketplace, are not enough to effect a taking of property under the Fifth Amendment.”
Dimare Fresh, Inc. v. United States, 2014 U.S. Claims LEXIS 985 (Fed. Cl. Sept. 18, 2014) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers]
Read more about food and beverage law in Food and Beverage News and Trends.
This information is intended as a general overview and discussion of the subjects dealt with. The information provided here was accurate as of the day it was posted; however, the law may have changed since that date. This information is not intended to be, and should not be used as, a substitute for taking legal advice in any specific situation. DLA Piper is not responsible for any actions taken or not taken on the basis of this information. Please refer to the full terms and conditions on our website.
Copyright © 2014 DLA Piper. All rights reserved.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site