|
Utah Lawyer Search - Listings for Hogan L Douglas Atty
Name: Hogan L Douglas Atty
Address: 86 S Main St Tooele, UT 84074
Phone Number: 435-843-5573
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
IN RE: VENEMAN ANN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsIN RE: VENEMAN ANN 1000 United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued September 6, 2002 Decided October 29, 2002 No. 02-5021 In re: Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture, Petitioner Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 99cv03119) Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert M. Loeb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Joseph M. Sellers argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were Suzette M. Malveaux, Alexander Pires, Jr., David Frantz, and Phillip L. Fraas. Michael L. Foreman, Elaine R. Jones, Norman J. Chach- kin, Paul M. Smith, Ian Heath Gershengorn, and John Dossett were on the brief for amici curiae in support of respondents. Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Tatel. Tatel, Circuit Judge: Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits certification of class actions not "exclusively or predominantly [for] money damages." This petition for interlocutory review presents the following ques- tion: In a case involving requests for both monetary and equitable relief, may a district court certify a Rule 23(b)(2) class as to equitable relief only without first determining whether, looking at the complaint as a whole, plaintiffs' monetary claims predominate over their equitable claims? Although this issue is both unsettled and fundamental- factors that may justify interlocutory review pursuant to Rule 23(f)-we nevertheless deny the petition because the critical questions required to resolve it are entirely unbriefed and because we are satisfied that the issue will not escape appel- late review. I. The United States Department of Agriculture administers ...
U.S. v. INN FOODS, INC. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1000 ; 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Michael S. Dufault, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Robert Scott Whiteley, Horton, Whiteley & Cooper, of Oakland, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Craig A. Mitchell, of Newport Beach, California. Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Senior Judge Nicholas Tsoucalas United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ DECIDED: September 13, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade dismissing the government's complaint against Inn Foods, Inc., as time-barred. United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003); United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003) (denying motion for reconsideration). Because we conclude that the complaint was filed within the period permitted by Inn Foods' waiver of the statute of limitations, we reverse. I The government filed suit against Inn Foods on December 14, 2001, alleging that Inn Foods deprived the government of duties on imported produce through the use of false importation documents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The government alleged that, from January 22, 1987, to January 19, 1990, the price of the produce declared by Inn Foods was less than Inn Foods and its importer, Seaveg, Ltd., actually paid for the produce. Und...
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...
|
|
|