|
Rhode Island Lawyer Search - Listings for Murray Edmund F Jr Atty
Name: Murray Edmund F Jr Atty
Address: 100 Armistice Blvd Pawtucket, RI 02860
Phone Number: 401-724-3600
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Dui And Traffic Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
AMER FED GOVT EMPL v VENEMAN ANN M., U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsAMER FED GOVT 1000 EMPL v VENEMAN ANN M. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 11, 2002 Decided March 29, 2002 No. 01-5035 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (98cv00893) Anne M. Wagner argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants. With her on the briefs was Mark Roth. Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Mark B. Stern and Colette G. Matzzie, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice. Barbara C. Biddle, Assistant Director, U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, entered an appearance. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph. Randolph, Circuit Judge: This case returns to us after proceedings on remand from Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("AFGE I"). The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") had at- tempted to test a new inspection model at several hog and poultry processing plants. AFGE I held that, as implement- ed, the model program violated the Federal Meat Inspection Act ("FMIA"), 21 U.S.C. § 604, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA"), 21 U.S.C. § 455. While the case was on remand in the district court, the USDA modified its model program. The question now is whether the revised model program complies with these statutes. Both statutes seek to ensure that all meat and poultry products processed for human consumption are wholesome and unadulterated. See 21 U.S.C. § 602; 21 U.S.C. § 451. The FMIA requir...
ISRAEL, DONALD v. US DEPT AGRICULTURE In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-1910 Donald and Patsy Israel, Richard and Shirley Quinton, all d/b/a Israel and Quinton Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 00 C 223-Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge. Argued October 23, 2001-Decided March 8, 2002 Before Harlington Wood, Jr., Cudahy, and Kanne Circuit Judges. Kanne, Circuit Judge. In 1989, plaintiffs restructured an existing loan with the Farm Service Agency ("FSA")/1 and signed a ten-year agreement as part of that restructuring. The agreement required plaintiffs to pay the FSA a percentage of appreciation that accrued to their property if certain triggering events transpired ("recapture"). In 1999, the FSA determined that expiration of the agreement was one of the triggering events and sought recapture. Plaintiffs sought administrative review of the FSA's determination and argued that only three events triggered recapture: full payment on the loan, cessation of farming, or transfer of the title of their property. The National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture found that the terms of the agreement allowed recapture at the expiration of the agreement. Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the Director of the National Appeals Division for the Department of Agriculture, who affirmed. Plaintiffs then sought judicial review of the agency's determinations and argued that they were arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, and unsupported by substantial evidence. The district court affirmed, and plaintiffs appealed. We affirm. I. History A. Shared Appreciation Agreement Plaintiffs, Donald and Patsy Israel and Richard and Shirley Quinton, own a farming partnership called Israel and Quinton Farms. In the fall of 1989, plaintiffs were indebted to the FSA in the amount...
|
|
|