|
Florida Lawyer Search - Listings for Schmidt Ron B Atty
Name: Schmidt Ron B Atty
Address: 235 N University Dr Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Phone Number: 954-961-9892
|
Specialties:
|
Juvenile Law
Criminal Law Traffic Offenses
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
ROSE ACRE FARMS INC. v. U.S. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit &n 1000 bsp; 03-5103 ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. Robert R. Clark, Sommer Barnard Ackerson, PC, of Indianapolis, Indiana, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Of counsel were Thomas A. Barnard, Michael D. Chambers and Geoffrey Slaughter. Sheryl L. Floyd, Senior Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellant. With her on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, David M. Cohen, Director, and Claudia Burke, Attorney. Of counsel on the brief was Margaret Breinholt, Attorney, United States Department of Agriculture, Office of General Counsel, of Washington, DC. Timothy J. Dowling, Community Rights Counsel, of Washington, DC, for amici curiae Center for Science in the Public Interest, et al. With him on the brief was Jason C. Rylander. Appealed from: United States Court of Federal Claims Senior Judge Bohdan A. Futey United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-5103 ROSE ACRE FARMS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: June 30, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, MICHEL, and RADER, Circuit Judges. MICHEL, Circuit Judge. Rose Acre Farms, Inc. ("Rose Acre") filed the present action in the United States Court of Federal Claims in 1992, claiming that United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") regulations that restricted egg sales from and imposed other requirements on farms that tested positive for the presence of salmonella bacteria effected a taking requiring compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The trial court held that Rose Acre was entitled to compensation for a taking of the eggs affected by the regulations, Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States, 55 Fed. Cl. 643, 660 (2003), a...
|
|
|