Jim Peters has particular expertise in civil litigation, environmental, land use and real estate matters, including summary judgment motions and appeals. Jim has presented over 100 summary judgment motions in state and federal courts, asking the courts to decide the case based in the law and facts developed in the case; for the plaintiffs and for the defense. The cases have involved a broad range of subject matter, including environmental, real estate, land use, corporate, financial, contract, malpractice, civil rights, insurance coverage and tort liability. He has also worked on numerous appeals.

Our firm recently represented Minnesotans for Responsible Recreation (MRR) in a significant consolidated case against the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, involving environmental review of proposed plans and trails for off-highway-vehicles (OHV) in Minnesota State Forests. After obtaining consolidation of several individual cases, the Cass County District Court Judge issued an Order in favor of MRR, ordering the DNR to conduct environmental assessment worksheets (EAWs) on these OHV plans and trails. MRR v. DNR, File No. C2-01-616, Cass County District Court (January 18, 2002).  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in part and ordered the review to take place on the trails. MRR v. DNR, 651 N.W.2d 533 (Minn.App. 2002). 

We recently represented parties to various agreements related to the purchase and sale of a business and real estate. A Minnesota District Court enforced the language of the agreements in favor of our clients.  In another recent case of the same type, a Minnesota District Court enforced an agreement in favor of our clients. 

Our firm is also representing several clients in environmental review cases involving a variety of land use projects, including CAFOs (confined animal feeding operations).

Our firm represented Pope County Mothers against the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, in which the District Court and Minnesota Court of Appeals both ordered the MPCA to require an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on a multi-site hog feedlot facility (the equivalent to a city of about 35,000+ people) sited in an area with glacial outwash sols and near a tributary to the Minnesota River. Pope County Mothers v. MPCA, 594 N.W.2d 233 (Minn.App. 1999).

We represented Fillmore County Citizens against the MPCA regarding environmental review of a proposed total confinement dairy in the karst region of southeastern Minnesota. The Fillmore County District Court issued a ruling in favor of the Fillmore County Citizens, ordering the MPCA to require an EIS before approving the dairy, which was a project involving a 25+ million gallon manure earthen basin planned on top land that is medium-to-high risk for sinkhole development, near the Forestville State Park and a significant trout stream. Fillmore County Residents, et.al. v. MPCA, File No. CX-00-306, Fillmore County District Court (December 2000).

We represented citizens in a case against Waseca County regarding a proposed hog feedlot in south central Minnesota. The Waseca County District Court required an environmental assessment worksheet on the proposed hog feedlot equivalent to a city of about 9,000 people planned for about a 6 acre site, which featured 67 rural residences within a 2 mile radius. Alton Township Alliance v. Waseca County et.al., File No. CX-01-539, Waseca County District Court (January 23, 2002).

We represented citizens in Lac qui Parle County, Minnesota, in a case against Lac qui Parle County for their refusal to require an EAW on a proposed total confinement hog facility located in an area with limited groundwater resources and served by a rural water authority. The District Court ordered the County to require an EAW on the project. File No. C0-01-120, Lac qui Parle Counti District Court, March 6, 2002.

We represented citiezens in Goodhue County, Minnesota, against the County for their refusal to require an EAW on a turkey CAFO sited in the bed of an intermittent stream.  The District Court reversed the County and ordered the EAW.  Goodhue County District Court File No. 25 C8-02-830.