|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Allen James D Attorney at Law
Name: Allen James D Attorney at Law
Address: 726 College Ave Santa Rosa, CA 95404
Phone Number: 707-525-8525
|
Specialties:
|
Contract & Construction Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
IN RE:STEVE ROBINSON v. USCA6 Opinion 01b0007p.06 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2001 FED App. 0007P (6th Cir.) File Name: 01b0007p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: STEVE D. ROBINSON, Debtor. STEVE D. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. No. 00-8088 CHAMPAIGN LANDMARK, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, at Columbus. No. 99-57410. Argued: June 13, 2001 Decided and Filed: August 21, 2001 Before: BROWN, MORGENSTERN-CLARREN, and RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. OPINION WILLIAM HOUSTON BROWN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. The Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order overruling his objection to the claim of Champaign Landmark, Inc. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erred when it decided that there were no grounds warranting revocation of the arbitration award and whether the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that res judicata barred the Debtor's objection to Landmark's claim. As a part of these issues, there is a question of whether the bankruptcy court erred by denying the Debtor an opportunity to present evidence in support of his legal arguments. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over final orders of the bankruptcy courts of the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) and (c). The bankruptcy court's order disposing of Landmark's claim is a final appealable order, because it "'ends the litigation on the me...
MONSANTO CO. v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.) Defendant-Appellant. John F. Lynch, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Houston, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Susan K. Knoll, Richard L. Stanley, Steven G. Spears, and Connie Flores Jones. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph P. Conran, Husch & Eppenberger, of St. Louis, Missouri. Eric H. Weisblatt, Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Susan M. Dadio, R. Danny Huntington, Ronni S. Jillions, Barbara Webb Walker, and Bruce T. Wieder. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge E. Richard Webber United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.), Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: March 30, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Monsanto Company filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:00CV1915, seeking a declaratory judgment that its transgenic corn products did not infringe four patents owned by Aventis CropScience N.V., a predecessor of appellant Bayer BioScience N.V. The patents at issue claim a variety of methods and products relating to the insertion of bacterial DNA into plants to give the plants resistance to certain insects. Besides contending that it did not infringe any of the four patents, Monsanto alleged that the four patents were unenforceable and that various claims of the patents were invalid. Aventis counterclaimed, alleging that Monsanto infringed certain claims of each of the four patents. ...
|
|
|