{"id":9211,"date":"2020-12-28T01:31:49","date_gmt":"2020-12-28T07:31:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?p=9211"},"modified":"2026-04-17T15:18:20","modified_gmt":"2026-04-17T20:18:20","slug":"2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/","title":{"rendered":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review – Texas"},"content":{"rendered":"

If you missed our National Year in Review post, click here<\/a>.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

I am not sure I can remember a year with more agricultural law-related opinions being issued by Texas appellate courts. From fence law to eminent domain, hemp to liability, here are some of the biggest legal stories of 2020 from the Lone Star State.<\/p>\n

\"\"

Image by Falkenpost<\/a> from Pixabay<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/div>\n

\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dicamba Registration Vacated, New Registration Issued, Lawsuit Filed<\/strong><\/p>\n

Although this is a national issue, and we addressed it in more detail on our National Year in Review post, because it had such an impact on Texas cotton producers, I had to include it on this list as well.<\/p>\n

In June, shockwaves were sent across the country when the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the EPA improperly granted registration for three over-the-top dicamba products.\u00a0 As a result, the Ninth Circuit vacated the federal registration for these products.\u00a0\u00a0[Read blog post here<\/a>.]\u00a0 This resulted in a great deal of uncertainty and confusion about what farmers, most of whom had already planted the seeds and purchased their chemicals.\u00a0 Shortly thereafter, the EPA issued a Cancellation Order for the three pesticides, which included an existing stocks provision.\u00a0 This allowed producers to use any stocks through July 31, 2020 if the products were packaged, labeled, and released for shipment prior to the June 3 decision from the Ninth Circuit. [Read more here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

In October, the EPA issued a new registration for three of the over-the-top dicamba products for 2021-2025.\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a>.]\u00a0 The EPA imposed a number of additional restrictions, including a nationwide cutoff date of June 30 for soybeans and July 30 for cotton, an increased buffer requirement, the use of a pH buffering agent, and a simplified label.\u00a0 Additionally, the EPA will no longer allow states to further restrict the federal label through the use of FIFRA Section 24(c), the \u201cspecial local needs labels.\u201d\u00a0 While expansions may still be allowed under Section 24(c), restrictions will not.\u00a0 \u00a0Instead, any additional restrictions must be done through Section 24(a).\u00a0\u00a0This will require a much slower, more cumbersome process to further restrict the federal label. Essentially, if a state wanted to impose more restrictions than the federal label, as some states have previously done with earlier cut off dates, the state regulators would have to go through a state law or rulemaking process.\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a>.]\u00a0 In response to this new registration, Plains Cotton Growers and the American Soybean Association filed suit against the EPA, claiming that the new label restrictions were arbitrary and capricious and exceed the EPA’s authority under federal law. [Read Complaint here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

TX Supreme Court Addresses Fence Law Standard in\u00a0Pruski v. Garcia<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

In the first of three major decisions from the Texas Supreme Court, the Justices clarified an issue related to the applicable standard when animals get out onto a US or State Highway.\u00a0 This case arose in Wilson County when a bull escaped and was hit on a state highway.\u00a0 The bull was in a pasture with a gate that was latched, but was not locked, although a lock was present on the gate.\u00a0 The bull’s owner had only had cattle out one time before–approximately 8 years earlier.\u00a0 He was not aware that his bull escaped prior to the accident.<\/p>\n

Wilson County has a local stock law applicable to cattle that provides an animal owner may not “permit” an animal to run at large in the county.\u00a0 Under Texas law, an animal owner may not “knowingly permit” an animal to run at large on a State or US highway.\u00a0 And so, the question arose–which of these two standards applied?\u00a0 The plaintiff argued the lower “permit” standard was applicable, while the bull owner argued it was the more stringent “knowingly permit” standard.<\/p>\n

The Texas Supreme Court sided with the bull owner, making clear that in a situation where a collision with an animal occurs on a US or State Highway in a county with a stock law, a plaintiff will be required to prove that the livestock owner “knowingly permitted” the animal to run at large in order for the owner to be held liable.\u00a0 Based on the facts of this case, the court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the bull owner “knowingly permitted” the bull to run at large and, therefore, dismissed all charges.\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

TX Supreme Court Reverses Lower Court Rulings for Landowner in\u00a0SWEPCO v. Lynch<\/em>\u00a0Easement Width Case<\/strong><\/p>\n

This case involved a landowner of property encumbered by a blanket easement signed in 1949 allowing the utility company to build an electric transmission line across the property.\u00a0 The line was erected in 1949 and since that time, the company used 30′ total width.\u00a0 In 2014, the utility company began to rebuild and modernize the lines and offered landowners $1000 in exchange for supplementing the existing easement with an express width of 100 feet.\u00a0 The plaintiffs in this case refused the $1,000 offer and contended the company\u2019s use should be limited to the historically used 30\u2032.\u00a0 Both the trial court and court of appeals sided with the landowners.\u00a0 The utility company appealed.<\/p>\n

The Texas Supreme Court reversed.\u00a0 The Justices said they would not write a limitation into the parties’ agreement that was not included.\u00a0 \u201cWe see no reason to disturb this Court\u2019s\u2026long-standing treatment of general easements in Texas.\u00a0 The starting point of any exercise in easement construction is the same as for contract interpretation: the easement\u2019s plain language.\u00a0 If the easement\u2019s terms are ascertainable and can be given legal effect, courts will not supplant the easement\u2019s express terms with additional terms nor consult extrinsic evidence to discern the easement\u2019s meaning.\u00a0 Parties who enter into easements are certainly capable of writing a fixed width into the easement.\u00a0 That is their prerogative.\u00a0 But as the prior cases demonstrate, sometimes parties to an easement account for anticipated developments in technology and demand by not fixing an easement\u2019s width.\u00a0 The use of a general easement without a fixed width is a strategic decision that does not render an easement ambiguous or require a court to supply the missing term.\u201d\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

TX Supreme Court Rules Farm Animal Liability Act Inapplicable to Injured Ranchers & Ranch Hands in\u00a0Waak v. Zuniga<\/em><\/b><\/p>\n

Mr. Zuniga was killed by a bull while working as a ranch hand for the Waak cattle ranch.\u00a0 His family filed a wrongful death suit against the ranch owners. In response, the ranch owners raised the Texas Farm Animal Liability Act (FALA) as a defense.<\/p>\n

The FALA provides that a person is not liable for injuries during a farm animal activity if those injuries are caused by an inherent risk of the activity.\u00a0 The trial court dismissed the case, finding the FALA did apply.\u00a0 The Court of Appeals held that the FALA was inapplicable due to Mr. Zuniga’s status as an employee.<\/p>\n

The Texas Supreme Court, in a surprising opinion, held that the FALA does not apply in situations where the injured party is a rancher or ranch hand.\u00a0 Instead, the Court found that the protections of the FALA are confined to “shows, rides, exhibitions, competitions, and the like.” Thus, the FALA was not a valid defense for the Waaks, and the case was remanded for trial on the issue of wrongful death. [Read more here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Two Justices issued a strong dissent in the case, beginning with the following language: “As the Court reads the Farm Animal Liability Act, \u2018any person\u2019 means only some people. \u2018Farm animal activities\u2019 are not covered if they take place on ranches. And not just anybody who engaged in a \u2018farm animal activity\u2019 is a \u2018person who engages in the activity.\u2019 Who decides whether these limitations exist and how far they extend?\u00a0 Not the Legislature, which did not include any of them in the Act\u2019s text. Instead, courts will decide when the statute\u2019s words mean exactly what they say and when they mean something else.\u00a0 The unfortunate result is that people cannot simply read the Act\u2013and others similarly drafted\u2013and know what it means based on grammar and sentence structure.\u00a0 They must wait to see what the courts make of it.\u201d<\/p>\n

First District Court of Appeals in Houston Sides with Landowner in Hlavinka v. HSC Pipeline Partnership <\/em>Pipeline Condemnation Appeal\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n

In this case, the Hlavinkas own property that they purchased years ago with the primary purpose of generating income by acquiring additional pipeline easements.\u00a0 HSC Pipeline Partnership (HSC) sought to obtain a 30-foot wide pipeline easement across the Hlavinka property.\u00a0 When the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the easement terms, the Hlavinkas filed suit challenging HSC’s eminent domain power.\u00a0 The trial court ruled in favor of HSC on that issue, and at trial for compensation, excluded the testimony of Terry Hlavinka related to comparable private pipeline easement sales on his property.\u00a0 The Hlavinkas appealed.<\/p>\n

The First District Court of Appeals in Houston reversed.\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a>.]\u00a0 First, the court held that HSC did not conclusively establish its “common carrier” status to qualify to utilize eminent domain.\u00a0 The issue before the court was whether HSC proved by a “reasonable probability” that it was a common carrier.\u00a0 The court held that HSCs reliance on one contract shown did not provide conclusive evidence to support common carrier status, particularly in light of there being no other interconnections or potential customers.\u00a0 \u00a0Thus, it reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on this issue and remanded the case for trial.<\/p>\n

Second, the court addressed an important evidentiary issue–can Mr. Hlavinka, as a lay person, offer testimony regarding other private pipeline sales on the property and the fact that the highest and best use of the property was not agricultural use, but use for pipeline developments?\u00a0 The court answered in the affirmative, holding that his testimony was wrongfully excluded by the trial court.<\/p>\n

Both parties have filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Corpus Christi Court of Appeals Holds High-Speed Rail Has Eminent Domain Authority in Texas Central Railroad v. Miles<\/em>\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

In a contentious battle in Central Texas, the question of whether Texas Central Railroad (TCR) has eminent domain power to take land to build a high-speed rail from Dallas to Houston has been a major issue.\u00a0 In this case, Mr. Miles is a landowner along the proposed route of the high-speed rail, and he was by TCR contacted about providing access to survey his land.\u00a0 Mr. Miles filed suit seeking a declaration that TCR could not conduct the\u00a0 planned survey as they are not a “railroad company” or an “interurban electric railway” that has the power of eminent domain.\u00a0 \u00a0Mr. Miles bases this on the fact that they have no trains, tracks, and are not operating as a railroad.\u00a0 TCR argues that they are, in fact, a railroad company and interurban electric railway such that they have eminent domain power and, consequently, the right to survey.<\/p>\n

The trial court sided with Mr. Miles, holding that TCR met neither definition.\u00a0 TCR appealed.<\/p>\n

The Corpus Christi Court of Appeals reversed, holding that TCR has eminent domain because it is both a railroad company and interurban electric railway. Key to this determination was a provision in the Code Construction Act, which states that “words in the present tense included the future tense.”\u00a0 \u00a0[Read more here<\/a>.]<\/p>\n

Mr. Miles has filed a petition for review with the Texas Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Hemp Production Legal in Texas<\/strong><\/p>\n

Lastly, hemp production is now legal in the state of Texas.\u00a0 In March, the Texas Department of Agriculture adopted its hemp regulations, officially allowing for legal hemp production in the state of Texas.\u00a0 The regulations are lengthy and impose a number of requirements on producers including obtaining correct permits, transport manifests, mandatory THC testing, and destruction of\u00a0 plants exceeding the legal THC threshold.\u00a0 [Read more here<\/a> or view video here.<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

If you missed our National Year in Review post, click here.\u00a0 I am not sure I can remember a year with more agricultural law-related opinions being issued by Texas appellate courts. From fence law to eminent domain, hemp to liability, here are some of the biggest legal stories of 2020 from the Lone Star State. \u00a0 Dicamba Registration Vacated, New Registration Issued, Lawsuit Filed Although this is a national issue, and we addressed it in more detail on our National Year in Review post, because it had such… Read More →<\/a><\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2443,"featured_media":9520,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[67,21,12,47,24,70,31,30,23],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-dicamba","category-easements","category-eminent-domain","category-farm-animal-liability-act","category-fence-law","category-hemp","category-landowner-liability","category-texas-supreme-court-decisions","category-year-in-review"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"If you missed our National Year in Review post, click here.\u00a0 I am not sure I can remember a year with more agricultural law-related opinions being issued by Texas appellate courts. From fence law to eminent domain, hemp to liability, here are some of the biggest legal stories of 2020 from the Lone Star State. \u00a0 Dicamba Registration Vacated, New Registration Issued, Lawsuit Filed Although this is a national issue, and we addressed it in more detail on our National Year in Review post, because it had such... Read More →\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Texas Agriculture Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"640\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"419\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@tiffdowell\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":[\"Article\",\"BlogPosting\"],\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\"},\"headline\":\"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review – Texas\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1977,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/texas-1656861_640.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Dicamba\",\"Easements\",\"Eminent Domain\",\"Farm Animal Liability Act\",\"Fence Law\",\"Hemp\",\"Landowner Liability\",\"Texas Supreme Court Decisions\",\"Year in Review\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/\",\"name\":\"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/texas-1656861_640.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/texas-1656861_640.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2020\\\/10\\\/texas-1656861_640.jpg\",\"width\":640,\"height\":419,\"caption\":\"Image by Falkenpost from Pixabay\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/2020\\\/12\\\/28\\\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review – Texas\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"description\":\"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/files\\\/2023\\\/12\\\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg\",\"width\":400,\"height\":400,\"caption\":\"Texas Agriculture Law\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/texasaglaw\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/tiffdowell\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\\\/\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626\",\"name\":\"tiffany.dowelllashmet\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/agrilife.org\\\/texasaglaw\\\/author\\\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law","og_description":"If you missed our National Year in Review post, click here.\u00a0 I am not sure I can remember a year with more agricultural law-related opinions being issued by Texas appellate courts. From fence law to eminent domain, hemp to liability, here are some of the biggest legal stories of 2020 from the Lone Star State. \u00a0 Dicamba Registration Vacated, New Registration Issued, Lawsuit Filed Although this is a national issue, and we addressed it in more detail on our National Year in Review post, because it had such... Read More →","og_url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/","og_site_name":"Texas Agriculture Law","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","article_published_time":"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":640,"height":419,"url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@tiffdowell","twitter_site":"@tiffdowell","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":["Article","BlogPosting"],"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/"},"author":{"name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626"},"headline":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review – Texas","datePublished":"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/"},"wordCount":1977,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg","articleSection":["Dicamba","Easements","Eminent Domain","Farm Animal Liability Act","Fence Law","Hemp","Landowner Liability","Texas Supreme Court Decisions","Year in Review"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/","name":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review - Texas - Texas Agriculture Law","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg","datePublished":"2020-12-28T07:31:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-04-17T20:18:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2020\/10\/texas-1656861_640.jpg","width":640,"height":419,"caption":"Image by Falkenpost from Pixabay"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/2020\/12\/28\/2020-agricultural-law-year-in-review-texas\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2020 Agricultural Law Year in Review – Texas"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#website","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","description":"Teaching, Research, Extension and Service","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#organization","name":"Texas Agriculture Law","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/files\/2023\/12\/TZIFRg5K_400x400.jpg","width":400,"height":400,"caption":"Texas Agriculture Law"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/texasaglaw","https:\/\/x.com\/tiffdowell","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/tiffany-dowell-lashmet-0a718778\/"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/#\/schema\/person\/754aac94b6e8c9d5829c91e8c9ff7626","name":"tiffany.dowelllashmet","url":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/author\/tiffany-dowelllashmet\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9211","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2443"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9211"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9211\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15043,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9211\/revisions\/15043"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9520"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/agrilife.org\/texasaglaw\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}