|
Minnesota Lawyer Search - Listings for Newby Lingren & Skare Ltd
Name: Newby Lingren & Skare Ltd
Address: 1219 14th St Cloquet, MN 55720
Phone Number: 218-879-3333
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. et al. v. LYONS, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 01-950. Argued April 22, 2003-Decided June 9, 2003* In most of the country, but not California, the minimum price paid to dairy farmers producing raw milk is regulated pursuant to federal marketing orders, which guarantee a uniform price for the producers, but through pooling mechanisms require the processors of different classes of dairy products to pay different prices. California has adopted a similar, although more complex, program to regulate the minimum prices paid by California processors to California producers. Three state statutes create California's milk marketing structure: 1935 and 1967 Acts establish milk pricing and pooling plans, while a 1947 Act governs the composition of milk products sold in the State. Under the state scheme, California processors of fluid milk pay a premium price (part of which goes into a price equalization pool) that is higher than the prices paid to producers. During the 1990's, it became profitable for some California processors to buy raw milk from out-of-state producers. In 1997, the California Department of Food and Agriculture amended its regulations to require contributions to the price equalization pool on some out-of-state purchases. Petitioners, out-of-state dairy farmers, brought these suits, alleging that the 1997 amendment unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Without reaching the merits, the District Court dismissed both cases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, that a 1996 federal statute immunized California's milk pricing and pooling laws from Commerce Clause challenge, and that the individual petitioners' Privileges and Immunities Clause claims failed because the 1997 amendment did not, on its face, create classifications based on any individual's residency or citizenship. Held: 1. California's milk pric...
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...
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...
|
|
|