|
Rhode Island Lawyer Search - Listings for Stone Bernice Atty
Name: Stone Bernice Atty
Address: 1481 Wampanoag Trl Riverside, RI 02915
Phone Number: 401-437-4450
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
Immigration Naturalization & Customs Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
GORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of AppealsGORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit _ Spring Term, 2001 (Argued: March 14, 2001 Decided: June 04, 2001) Docket No. 00-9012, 00-9104 _ Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, -v.- Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Angela Warner, individually and as agent, servant and employee of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Mike Pierotti, individually and as President of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Dorothy Foster, Bob Lindsay, Tim Manning, Marion Pierce, Jo Ann Rafilik, Steve Ras, Linda Rohmer, Sharon Sutton and Grace Underwood, individually and as directors of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. _ Before: Sotomayor, Katzmann, Circuit Judges, and Chin, District Judge.* _ Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief Judge), granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient proof of a causal connection between their allegedly constitutionally protected speech and their dismissal from defendants' 4-H program. Defendants-Cross-Appellants appeal the denial of their request for attorney's fees. The appeal is granted, and the judgment is vacated and remanded; the cross- appeal is denied as moot. _ L. John Van Norden, Schenectady, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Jeffrey T. Culkin, Gordon, Siegel, Mastro, Mullaney, Gordon & Galvin, P.C., Latham, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Corne...
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....
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -* EARL C. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* RANDOLPH F. LOVETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* ALTON E. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-00-1482-4-12, CA-00-2053-4-12, CA-00-2054-4-12) Argued: May 7, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson joined. Judge Luttig wrote a dissenting opinion. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Keith Moss Babcock, LEWIS, BABCOCK & HAW- KINS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. John Berk- ley Grimball, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James H. Renfrow, Jr., Dillon, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. _ OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: The Secretary of Agriculture denied the applications of farmers Earl McDaniels, Randolph Lovett, and Alton Brown for livestock disaster relief because each farmer's 1997 gross revenue exceeded $2.5 million, making him ineligible for assistance under applicable Department of Agriculture regulations. In this action, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the farmers challenge these regula- tions, contending that they are arbitrary and capricious because gross revenue is defined to include pass-through funds - in this case, sales of bailment tobacco - in which the farmers had no interest. The district court held that the applicable regulations were "reason- ab...
|
|
|