Keller Farms, Inc. v. Stewart, No. 18-3755 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's directed verdict and the jury's verdict in favor of appellees in an action involving a dispute between landowners and herbicide damage. The court held that the district court did not err in directing a verdict against Keller Farms on it statutory trespass count. In this case, the district court properly interpreted the Missouri trespass statute to exclude Keller Farm's claim for crop damage, and the district court did not err in determining that Keller Farms had not presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case for its statutory trespass claim concerning damage to its windbreak and ornamental trees.
The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding a warning letter as well as testimony about it under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 because it was unfairly prejudicial; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a new trial on the ground that appellees' closing argument was improper.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Arnold and Grasz, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Torts. In action alleging defendants had negligently applied herbicides allowing them to drift onto plaintiff's property and cause damage to plaintiff's crops and trees, the district court did not err in directing a verdict for defendants on plaintiff's statutory trespass count; first, the court properly interpreted the Missouri trespass statute to exclude plaintiff's claim for crop damage; second,the court did not err in determining plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to make a submissible case for its statutory trespass claim concerning damage to its windbreak and ornamental trees; the district court did not err in excluding a warning letter concerning the incident prepared by the Missouri Department of Agriculture and testimony concerning it under Rule 403 based on its determination the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial and invade the province of the jury; the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a new trial on the ground the verdict was against the weight of the evidence; claim defendant's counsel's closing argument required a new trial rejected as the court properly instructed the jury arguments were not evidence and plaintiff had an opportunity to respond to the argument.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.