|
Delaware Lawyer Search - Listings for Stumpf Vickers & Sandy Pa
Name: Stumpf Vickers & Sandy Pa
Address: 8 W Market St Georgetown, DE 19947
Phone Number: 302-856-3561
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
EXCEL CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES DEPT FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 15 2005 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EXCEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. No. 04-9540 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Agency No. D-99-0010) John R. Fleder, of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., Washington, D.C. (Timothy B. Mustaine and Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, Wichita, Kansas, and Philip C. Olsson and Brett T. Schwemer, of Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, Senior Counsel (James Michael Kelly, Deputy General Counsel, and Margaret M. Breinholt, Assistant General Counsel, with him on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Excel Corporation seeks review of a decision and order issued by respondent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finding that Excel violated 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), 7 U.S.C. 192(a), and an implementing regulation, 9 C.F.R. 201.99(a), by failing to disclose to hog producers a change in Excel's formula for computing the "lean weight" of hog carcasses. Excel also challenges the decision and order to the extent it directs Excel to cease and desist from engaging in certain related practices. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342(2), we grant Excel's petition for review for the sole purpose of modifying the cease and desist language of the decision and order. As so modified, the decision and order is enforced. I. Factual background Excel, a corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. ROA, Vol. V, Doc. 155 at 13, 82....
Schroeder v. Bush FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 1000 AUG 24 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EUGENE SCHRODER; EDWIN PETROWSKY; R. RUSSELL GRIDER; and WESLEY No. 00_1357 MYERS, Plaintiffs_Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States; ANN M. VENEMAN, United States Secretary of Agriculture; PAUL H. O'NEILL, United States Secretary of the Treasury;(1) and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants_Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00_K_154) Walker Fowler Todd, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for Plaintiffs_Appellants. Peter J. Krumholz, Assistant United States Attorney (Thomas L. Strickland, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants_ Appellees. Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIMMER,(2) District Judge. EBEL, Circuit Judge. Appellants are farmers or ranchers who live and work within the territorial boundaries of the Tenth Circuit and who seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States of America (collectively, "Appellees"). Appellants seek, in essence, an order requiring Appellees and their agents to maintain market conditions favorable to small farmers. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, writing, "The Complaint seeks to have this court determine political questions which are properly addressed [by] the elected branches of the government. This Court has no jurisdiction over the discretionary acts of either. Plaintiffs' remedies are at the polling place, not the courts." Schroder v. Clinton, No. 00_ CV_154_K (D. Colo. July 6, 2000) (hereinafter "D.Ct. Order"). We agree that Appellants ask us to consider nonjusticiable political questions and that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), ...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
|
|
|