|
Tennessee Lawyer Search - Listings for Aho Donald Atty
Name: Aho Donald Atty
Address: 1000 Georgia Ave Chattanooga, TN 37402
Phone Number: 423-785-8239
|
Specialties:
|
Patent Trademark & Copyright 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...
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...
LAMPE v. WILLIAMSON FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit JUN 3 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT In re: DONALD R. LAMPE and SHELIA L. LAMPE, Debtors. DONALD R. LAMPE and SHELIA L. LAMPE, Appellees, v. No. 02-3221 DARCY D. WILLIAMSON, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellant, and IOLA BANK & TRUST CO. KANSAS BANKERS ASSOCIATION, Amicus Curiae. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT (B.A.P. No. KS-01-007) Submitted on the briefs: Darcy D. Williamson, Trustee, Topeka, Kansas, for the Appellant. William E. Metcalf, Metcalf & Justus, Topeka, Kansas, for the Appellees. Anne L. Baker, Wright, Henson, Somers, Sebelius, Clark & Baker, LLP, Topeka, Kansas, filed an Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of Kansas Bankers Association in Support of Appellant. Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.(1) Debtors Donald and Shelia Lampe are husband and wife farmers who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Lampes each claimed as exempt from the bankruptcy estate $7500 worth of farm equipment as "tools of the trade" under the applicable Kansas exemption statute. The Trustee objected to Shelia Lampe's claim, arguing she did not have a sufficient ownership interest in the farm equipment to claim the exemption. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas agreed with the Trustee, and held Shelia Lampe could not claim the exemption. The Lampes appealed. The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BAP) reversed, holding Shelia Lampe was entitled to the "tools of the trade" exemption. The Trustee appeals, arguing Shelia Lampe does not have an ownership interest in the farm equipment. The Trustee (1) After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral ar 1000 gument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case therefore is...
|
|
|