|
Connecticut Lawyer Search - Listings for Burkhart Alfred W Atty
Name: Burkhart Alfred W Atty
Address: 691 Silvermine Rd New Canaan, CT 06840
Phone Number: 203-966-8345
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
AMER FED GOVT EMPL v VENEMAN ANN M., U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsAMER FED GOVT 1000 EMPL v VENEMAN ANN M. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued January 11, 2002 Decided March 29, 2002 No. 01-5035 American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO, et al., Appellants v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (98cv00893) Anne M. Wagner argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellants. With her on the briefs was Mark Roth. Charles W. Scarborough, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, Mark B. Stern and Colette G. Matzzie, Attorneys, U.S. Department of Justice. Barbara C. Biddle, Assistant Director, U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, entered an appearance. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, Randolph and Tatel, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph. Randolph, Circuit Judge: This case returns to us after proceedings on remand from Am. Fed'n of Gov't Employees v. Glickman, 215 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2000) ("AFGE I"). The United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA") had at- tempted to test a new inspection model at several hog and poultry processing plants. AFGE I held that, as implement- ed, the model program violated the Federal Meat Inspection Act ("FMIA"), 21 U.S.C. § 604, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act ("PPIA"), 21 U.S.C. § 455. While the case was on remand in the district court, the USDA modified its model program. The question now is whether the revised model program complies with these statutes. Both statutes seek to ensure that all meat and poultry products processed for human consumption are wholesome and unadulterated. See 21 U.S.C. § 602; 21 U.S.C. § 451. The FMIA requir...
Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1 v CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS FILED United States Cour 1000 t of Appeals Tenth Circuit MAR 22 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1, ELLSWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS, commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District, also known as Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1, Nos. 98_3337, 98_3340, Plaintiff_Appellant and Cross_ Appellee, 99_3075 & 99_3084 v. CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS, Defendant_Appellee and Cross_ Appellant. APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. No. CV_96_1297_WEB) Victor S. Nelson, of Victor S. Nelson, P.A., Wichita, Kansas, for the appellant. Allen G. Glendenning, of Watkins, Calcara, Rondeau, Friedeman, Bleeker, Glendenning & McVay, Chtd, Great Bend, Kansas, for the appellee. Before HENRY, BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District Judge.(1) (1) The Honorable Wayne E. Alley, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. HENRY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Rural Water District No. 1, Ellsworth County, Kansas (commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District) brought this case alleging that defendant City of Wilson, Kansas, (the City) violated 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) by providing domestic water service to customers in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Post Rock appeals the district court's refusal to grant a permanent injunction preventing the City from providing domestic water service in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock also appeals the district court's refusal to award all of its attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The City cross_appeals the district court's decision to grant a contingent injunction concerning the City's provision of water service in the Purma Addition. The City further appeals the district court's award of partial attorney fees to Post Rock under § 1988. We exe...
1000 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1002 ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. Alan Goggins, Barnes, Richardson & Colburn, of New York, New York, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Of counsel on the brief was Kevin J. Sullivan. Aimee Lee, Attorney, International Trade Field Office, Department of Justice, of New York, New York, argued for defendant-appellee. With her on the brief were David M. Cohen, Director, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, of Washington, DC; and John J. Mahon, Acting Attorney in Charge, International Trade Field Office. Of counsel on the brief was Yelena Slepak, Attorney, Office of Assistant Chief Counsel, U.S. Customs Service, of New York, New York. Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Chief Judge Gregory W. Carman United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1002 ORLEANS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee. _ DECIDED: July 11, 2003 _ Before MAYER, Chief Judge, MICHEL, and RADER, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge MICHEL. Dissenting opinion filed by Chief Judge MAYER. MICHEL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-appellant Orleans International, Inc. ("Orleans") appeals the order of the United States Court of International Trade dismissing for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Orleans' challenge of the constitutionality of import assessments mandated by the Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 ("Beef Act"), 7 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2911 (2000). Orleans Int'l, Inc. v. United States, 206 F. Supp. 2d 1318 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2002). Because we hold that the Court of International Trade erred in holding that it did not have exclusive jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1581(i)(2), we reverse and remand. BACKGROUND The Beef Act aims to "carry[] out a coo...
|
|
|