|
South Dakota Lawyer Search - Listings for Kuck Law Office
Name: Kuck Law Office
Address: 723 N Highway 281 Aberdeen, SD 57401
Phone Number: 605-225-5890
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
Employment & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
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...
USA v MCCLATCHY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES H. MCCLATCHY, JR., Defendants-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville April 19, 2001 Before POLITZ, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Charles H. McClatchy, Jr. ("McClatchy") appeals his conviction and sentence for conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McClatchy was convicted in a jury trial on six counts of a seven count indictment involving conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud.(1) The facts giving rise to his indictment and conviction are as follows. McClatchy and his nephew, Charles B. McElmurray, III ("McElmurray"), were partners in 1994 in a farming partnership called the "McClatchy Planting Company" ("McClatchy Planting" or "the company"). McClatchy Planting planted, grew, and sold cotton and soybeans near Indianola in Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the spring of 1994, the company applied for financing with the Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA") and received an emergency loan in the amount of $261,170 and a 1994 farm operating loan in the amount of $200,000. At that time, McClatchy and McElmurray executed a security agreement in which they pledged to the FmHA their 1994 crops as collateral for the operating and emergency loans. They also executed Form FmHA 1962-1, Agreement for the Use of Proceeds/Release of Chattel Security ("Form 1962-1"). Form 1962-1 outlined the intended use of all crop proceeds, and it also state...
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...
|
|
|