|
Florida Lawyer Search - Listings for Carrillo Frank Atty
Name: Carrillo Frank Atty
Address: 3663 SW 8th St Ste 214 Miami, FL 33135
Phone Number: 305-444-3000
|
Specialties:
|
Bankruptcy Law
Criminal Law Traffic Offenses
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
BELL v. FUR BREEDERS AGRIC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit NOV 7 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JOHN M. BELL, a/k/a Jack Bell; JOHN ROBERT BELL, a/k/a Bob Bell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 01-4252 v. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE, a cooperative organized under the laws of Utah; DANE DIXON, JACK MARCHANT, STAN PETERSON, STAN STUART, KENT VERNON, and RICK WESTWOOD, former directors/members of Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 96-CV-939-ST) Roy B. Moore (Tiani Xochitl Coleman, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs) of Roy B. Moore P.C. & Associates, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiffs- Appellants. Perrin R. Love (Wendy B. Crowther of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson; and R. Scott Rawlings with him on the brief) of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Before HARTZ and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from an action brought by John M. (Jack) Bell and John Robert (Bob) Bell against Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative and its former directors and members of the board of directors. The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative, Fur Breeders committed antitrust violations pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a). The Bells contend Fur Breeders violated antitrust laws because the discounted price it charged the Bells for feed they hauled themselves did not cover their actual costs, thereby limiting their ability to remain competitive with other cooperative members who ranched within the cooperative's delivery route and paid a different price for delivered feed. The Bells appeal the district court's order granting...
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...
LA FED LAND BNK v FARM CRDT ADMIN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsLA FED LAND BNK v 1000 FARM CRDT ADMIN United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2002 Decided July 29, 2003 No. 01-5366 Louisiana Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA, et al., Appellants v. Farm Credit Administration, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 00cv01582) Daniel Joseph argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Beth Hirschfelder Wilensky. C. Fairley Spillman entered an appearance. Edward Himmelfarb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Kathleen C. Kauffman argued the cause for appellee First South Farm Credit, ACA. With her on the brief were Nels J. Ackerson and L. Keith Parsons. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: The Farm Credit Administration promulgated a rule eliminating geographical restrictions upon certain activities of lenders within the Farm Credit System, and thereby put them into competition with each other. The plaintiffs-appellants - lenders within the System - challenged the rule in district court, claiming it conflicted with the Farm Credit Act and with a 1992 Amendment thereto, and that the FCA promulgated the rule in violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The dis- trict court, holding the FCA had complied with the proper procedures and the plaintiffs' statutory arguments were ei- ther without merit or had been forfeited, entered summary judgment for the FCA. We hold the Agency was required by the APA to address the plaintiffs' comment before promulgating the rule. For that reason we reverse the...
|
|
|