|
Iowa Lawyer Search - Listings for Hartung Kirk M Pat Atty
Name: Hartung Kirk M Pat Atty
Address: 801 Grand Ave Des Moines, IA 50309
Phone Number: 515-288-3667
|
Specialties:
|
Patent Trademark & Copyright Law
Intellectual Property
|
|
|
|
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....
IN RE:STEVE ROBINSON v. USCA6 Opinion 01b0007p.06 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2001 FED App. 0007P (6th Cir.) File Name: 01b0007p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: STEVE D. ROBINSON, Debtor. STEVE D. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. No. 00-8088 CHAMPAIGN LANDMARK, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, at Columbus. No. 99-57410. Argued: June 13, 2001 Decided and Filed: August 21, 2001 Before: BROWN, MORGENSTERN-CLARREN, and RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. OPINION WILLIAM HOUSTON BROWN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. The Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order overruling his objection to the claim of Champaign Landmark, Inc. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erred when it decided that there were no grounds warranting revocation of the arbitration award and whether the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that res judicata barred the Debtor's objection to Landmark's claim. As a part of these issues, there is a question of whether the bankruptcy court erred by denying the Debtor an opportunity to present evidence in support of his legal arguments. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over final orders of the bankruptcy courts of the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) and (c). The bankruptcy court's order disposing of Landmark's claim is a final appealable order, because it "'ends the litigation on the me...
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 ...
|
|
|