|
Arizona Lawyer Search - Listings for Whiting Dale
Name: Whiting Dale
Address: Chandler, AZ 85224
Phone Number: 480-899-2829
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Bankruptcy Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
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...
|
|
|