|
Alaska Lawyer Search - Listings for Von Gemmingen Brett Attorney at Law
Name: Von Gemmingen Brett Attorney at Law
Address: 637 W 3rd Ave Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone Number: 907-278-5935
|
Specialties:
|
Insurance Law & Coverage
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
USCA10 Opinion 04-8084.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit August 16, 2005 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RUDY STANKO, individually and on behalf of similarly situated cattle traders, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 04-8084 v. JIM MAHAR, individually and in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING (D.C. No. 04-CV-03-B) Submitted on the briefs: Rudy Stanko, Gordon, Nebraska, Plaintiff-Appellant, Pro se. Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General, John W. Renneisen, Deputy Attorney General, Misha Westby, Senior Assistant Attorney General, David L. Delicath, Assistant Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General, Cheyenne, Wyoming for Defendant-Appellee. Before LUCERO, McKAY, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. McKAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Rudy Stanko, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court's order granting summary judgment to defendant Jim Maher(1) on Mr. Stanko's complaint alleging violations of his constitutional rights.(2) We affirm the entry of summary judgment in favor of Mr. Maher.(3) FACTS Mr. Stanko is a resident of Gordon, Nebraska who operates as a stock owner and drover in Fremont, Natrona, and Teton Counties, Wyoming. Mr. Maher is a brand inspector employed by the State of Wyoming Livestock Board (Board). (1) The case caption spells Mr. Maher's name "Mahar" but it appears that the correct spelling is "Maher." (2) Mr. Stanko's complaint recites that it is brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens creates a remedy for violations of constitutional rights committed by federal officials acting in their individual capacities. Mr. Maher is a state brand inspector. Therefore, this action arises, if at all, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 rather than Bivens. (3) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimous...
ROBBINS v. BLM FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit February 23, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT HARVEY FRANK ROBBINS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 05-8087 UNITED STATES BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, an agency of the United States Department of the Interior; GALE A. NORTON, Secretary of the Interior; KATHLEEN CLARKE, Director of the United States Bureau of Land Management; EDWARD SHEPARD, Assistant Director, Renewable Resources and Planning, United States Bureau of Land Management; and ROBERT BENNETT, Wyoming State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF WYOMING (D.C. NO. 04-CV-41-J) Marc Ryan Stimpert (Karen Budd-Falen and Erin Sass-Eastman on the briefs), Budd-Falen Law Offices, LLC, Cheyenne, Wyoming, for Plaintiff - Appellant. Robert J. Lundman, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C. (Matthew J. McKeown, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C.; Todd S. Aagaard, United States Department of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.; and Kristina Clark, Of Counsel, Office of the Solicitor, Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.; with him on the brief), for Defendants - Appellees. Before TACHA, Chief Circuit Judge, ANDERSON and HARTZ,(1) Circuit Judges. ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Harvey Frank Robbins brought this suit challenging the termination by the Bureau of Land Management ("BLM") of a Settlement Agreement that, if it had remained in effect for two years, would have required the BLM to dismiss sixteen pending administrative actions against Robbins. The district court upheld the BLM's action. Robbins appeals, arguing, as he did below, that, in voiding the Settlement Agreement, the BLM violated his Fifth Amendment procedural due process rights. The BLM responds that Robbins' claim...
|
|
|