|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Staker Kevin G Atty
Name: Staker Kevin G Atty
Address: 1200 Paseo Camarillo Camarillo, CA 93010
Phone Number: 805-482-2282
|
Specialties:
|
Living Trusts
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Taxation 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...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
|
|
|