PETERS & PETERS, PLC
               Attorneys at Law

About us
Practice Areas
Articles   

Contact Us  
Directions

Attorneys
James Peters
Karna Peters

Links

Home

Jim Peters has particular experience 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 on 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 in the Minnesota Appellate Courts.

Our firm 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). The case significantly improved review of trail development in MN .

We 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 case of the same type, a Minnesota District Court enforced
an agreement in favor of our clients. Both of these were business/real estate matters.

Our firm is also representing several clients in environmental review cases involving a variety of
land use projects, including real estate projects, including CAFOs and lakeshore development.
We have obtained permits and approvals for project developers.

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 soils 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 of 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 Cass County regarding a proposed subdivision on
Lantern Bay on Woman Lake.  The Cass County District Court required an environmental
impact statement on the proposed project and separately vacated premature approvals
planned for the development in a unique and sensitive bay identified for special protection.  Save
Lantern Bay v. Cass County et al., File No. ________, Cass County District Court
(April 2005). More detailed review will help protect the resources of this area.

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
County District Court, March 6, 2002. There was not adequate water for the project.

We represented citizens 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.

We recently represented the sellers regarding a failed purchase agreement for the sale of a resort
property.  Because the buyers were financially unable to close on time and then refused to cancel,
we obtained a Court order directing the cancellation of the purchase agreement.  The buyer
appealed.  The Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in favor of our clients, clearing title on the
property.  Pope County District Court File No. C7-02-296; Minnesota Court of Appeals Case No.
A03-340, Robert Mueller v. Kirk Petersen. The sellers moved ahead with a new plan.   

We recently represented a citizen organization and several individual property owners regarding a
significant tire burning facility in Fillmore County, County, Minnesota.  The MPCA had declined to
order an environmental impact statement on the facility.  In the appeal to District Court, the
Fillmore County District Court remanded and ordered additional review by MPCA, which then ordered
an EIS on the tire burner facility.  File No. _________, Fillmore County District Court, 2005.

We have also achieved significant settlement agreements in civil cases for business or real estate matters.  For example,
we successfully resolved a shareholder dispute concerning ownership rights under a Buy-Sell
Agreement in a closely held corporation. This allowed the investors to resolve their dispute on good terms.

disclaimer

©Copyright 2010 Peters & Peters, PLC All Rights Reserved