|
North Dakota Lawyer Search - Listings for Adams Beverly L Atty
Name: Adams Beverly L Atty
Address: 10 Roberts St Fargo, ND 58102
Phone Number: 701-232-8957
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Bankruptcy Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
GORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of AppealsGORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit _ Spring Term, 2001 (Argued: March 14, 2001 Decided: June 04, 2001) Docket No. 00-9012, 00-9104 _ Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, -v.- Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Angela Warner, individually and as agent, servant and employee of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Mike Pierotti, individually and as President of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Dorothy Foster, Bob Lindsay, Tim Manning, Marion Pierce, Jo Ann Rafilik, Steve Ras, Linda Rohmer, Sharon Sutton and Grace Underwood, individually and as directors of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. _ Before: Sotomayor, Katzmann, Circuit Judges, and Chin, District Judge.* _ Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief Judge), granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient proof of a causal connection between their allegedly constitutionally protected speech and their dismissal from defendants' 4-H program. Defendants-Cross-Appellants appeal the denial of their request for attorney's fees. The appeal is granted, and the judgment is vacated and remanded; the cross- appeal is denied as moot. _ L. John Van Norden, Schenectady, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Jeffrey T. Culkin, Gordon, Siegel, Mastro, Mullaney, Gordon & Galvin, P.C., Latham, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Corne...
HARVEY v. VENEMAN USCA1 Opinion 04-1379 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit _ No. 04-1379 ARTHUR HARVEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ANN VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant, Appellee. _ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] _ Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Circuit Judge, and Schwarzer, (1) Senior District Judge. _ Paula Dinerstein with whom Lobel, Novins & Lamont was on brief for appellant. Susan E. Stokes, Jill E. Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, and Joseph Mendelson III, Center for Food Safety, on brief for Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides, Amici Curiae. James Handley, Handley Environmental Law, on brief for Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Inc., Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc., John Clark, Merrill Clark, Anne Mendenhall, Greenpeace USA, and Waterkeeper Alliance, Amici Curiae. Halsey B. Frank, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, was on the brief for appellee. _ January 26, 2005 _ SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. Arthur Harvey appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman on Harvey's claims alleging that multiple provisions of the National Organic Program Final Rule ("Final Rule" or "Rule"), 7 C.F.R. Pt. 205, are inconsistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6523 ("OFPA" or "Act"). Harvey appeals on seven of the nine counts he originally brought. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment on the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth counts and reverse on the third and seventh counts, and we remand for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. OVERVIEW OF OFPA AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS Congress enacted OFPA in 199...
SUGAR CANE GROWERS v VENEMAN ANN M., U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsSUGAR CANE GROWERS 1000 v VENEMAN ANN M. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 11, 2002 Decided May 10, 2002 No. 01-5335 Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, et al., Appellants v. Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (01cv01904) Raymond B. Ludwiszewski argued the cause for appel- lants. With him on the briefs were Peter E. Seley and Hassan A. Zavareei. David J. Ball, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, ar- gued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., United States Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney. William Bradford Reynolds and John F. Bruce were on the brief for amicus curiae United States Beet Sugar Associ- ation in support of appellees. Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Crystals Corporation, and Refined Sugars, Inc., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment holding that appellants lacked standing. The court dismissed their claims that the United States Department of Agriculture failed to comply with the Adminis- trative Procedure Act1 and the Food Security Act of 19852 in implementing a payment-in-kind program for the 2001 sugar crop by press release. We think appellants have demonstrat- ed standing and because the Department did not comply with the APA or the Food Security Act, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand to that court to in turn remand to the Department. I. In the United States, sugar production, which the govern- ment support...
|
|
|