|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for A Business Law Firm
Name: A Business Law Firm
Address: Mehlman Ter Beek Llp Walnut Creek, CA 94595
Phone Number: 925-935-3575
|
Specialties:
|
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
CROPLIFE AMER v EPA, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsCROPLIFE AMER v EPA United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued March 17, 2003 Decided June 3, 2003 No. 02-1057 CropLife America, et al., Petitioners v. Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent Natural Resources Defense Council and American Chemistry Council, Intervenors On Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Agency Kenneth W. Weinstein argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the brief was Alexandra A. E. Shapiro. Seth A. Goldberg argued the cause for intervenor American Chemistry Council. With him on the briefs was Cynthia L. Taub. Daniel M. Flores, Attorney, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, argued the cause for respondent. Christopher S. Vaden and Kent E. Hanson, Attorneys, entered appearances. Aaron Colangelo argued the cause for intervenor Natural Resources Defense Council. With him on the brief was Erik D. Olson. Joseph W. Hatchett, Lee Davis Thames and Jerry C. Hill were on the brief for amicus curiae Florida Citrus Mutual, et al., in support of petitioners. Benjamin S. Sharp was on the brief for amicus curiae Washington State Potato Commission in support of petition- ers. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Edwards. Edwards, Circuit Judge: This case concerns an Environ- mental Protection Agency ("EPA" or "the agency") directive banning agency consideration of "third-party" human studies in evaluating the safety of pesticides. In the late 1990s, EPA began reevaluating its practice of relying on data from third- party human studies, and began considering such data on a case-by-case basis only. In October 2001, the agency made this case-by-case practice clear to the regulated community. Then, however, the agency abruptly reversed its position. On December 14, 2001, EPA issued a di...
USCA10 Opinion 05-9000.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 9, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RONALD F. VAN SCOTEN; CYNTHIA G. VAN SCOTEN, Petitioners - Appellants, No. 05-9000 vs. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT (T.C. No. 24946-96) Terri A. Merriam (and Wendy S. Pearson, Pearson & Merriam, P.C, with her on the briefs), Seattle, Washington, for Petitioners - Appellants. Anthony T. Sheehan (and Bruce R. Ellisen, Tax Division, Department of Justice, and Eileen J. O'Connor, Assistant Attorney General, on the brief), Washington, D.C., for Respondent - Appellee. Before KELLY, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. KELLY, Circuit Judge. Taxpayer-Appellants Ronald and Cynthia Van Scoten (collectively, the "Van Scotens") appeal from the Tax Court's decision in Van Scoten v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-275, 2004 WL 2785918 (2004) ("T.C. Memo"), holding them liable for an accuracy-related penalty of $2,872 imposed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue ("Commissioner") as a result of their negligence in claiming losses from a cattle partnership they were invested in during the 1991 tax year. Our jurisdiction arises under 26 U.S.C. 7482(a)(1), and we affirm. Background The accuracy-related penalty at issue in this case arises from adjustments of partnership items on the Van Scotens' 1991 Federal income tax return. The adjustments are the result of the Van Scotens' investment in a partnership organized and promoted by Walter J. Hoyt III ("Mr. Hoyt"). I. Mr. Hoyt and the Hoyt Organization Mr. Hoyt's father was a nationally recognized breeder of shorthorn cattle, one of the three major breeds of cattle in the United States. In order to expand his business and attract investors, Mr. Hoyt's father, in the late 1960s, began organizing and promoting cattle breeding partnerships. Before and after his father's deat...
Schroeder v. Bush FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 1000 AUG 24 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EUGENE SCHRODER; EDWIN PETROWSKY; R. RUSSELL GRIDER; and WESLEY No. 00_1357 MYERS, Plaintiffs_Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States; ANN M. VENEMAN, United States Secretary of Agriculture; PAUL H. O'NEILL, United States Secretary of the Treasury;(1) and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants_Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00_K_154) Walker Fowler Todd, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for Plaintiffs_Appellants. Peter J. Krumholz, Assistant United States Attorney (Thomas L. Strickland, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants_ Appellees. Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIMMER,(2) District Judge. EBEL, Circuit Judge. Appellants are farmers or ranchers who live and work within the territorial boundaries of the Tenth Circuit and who seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States of America (collectively, "Appellees"). Appellants seek, in essence, an order requiring Appellees and their agents to maintain market conditions favorable to small farmers. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, writing, "The Complaint seeks to have this court determine political questions which are properly addressed [by] the elected branches of the government. This Court has no jurisdiction over the discretionary acts of either. Plaintiffs' remedies are at the polling place, not the courts." Schroder v. Clinton, No. 00_ CV_154_K (D. Colo. July 6, 2000) (hereinafter "D.Ct. Order"). We agree that Appellants ask us to consider nonjusticiable political questions and that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), ...
|
|
|