|
Georgia Lawyer Search - Listings for Burrow Darrell L Attorney at Law
Name: Burrow Darrell L Attorney at Law
Address: 4812 Old National Hwy # A Atlanta, GA 30337
Phone Number: 404-559-1121
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Bankruptcy Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
IN RE WILHELM ELSNER United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1000 03-1569 (Serial No. 09/664,247) IN RE WILHELM ELSNER Julie W. Meder, Webb Ziesenheim Logsdon Orkin & Hanson, P.C., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. Russell D. Orkin for appellant. John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Stephen Walsh and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitors. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1585 (Serial No. 09/267,559) IN RE KEITH W. ZARY Kenneth S. Klarquist, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Kevin M. Hayes. John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Stephen Walsh and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitors. Patrick H. Ballew, Stratton Ballew PLLC, of Yakima, Washington, for amicus curiae Northwest Nursery Improvement Institute, Inc. Of counsel was Rex B. Stratton, of Seattle, Washington. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1569 (Serial No. 09/664,247) IN RE WILHELM ELSNER - 03-1585 (Serial No. 09/267,559) IN RE KEITH ZARY _ DECIDED: August 16, 2004 _ Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Wilhelm Elsner appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the rejection of claim 1 of United States plant patent application 09/664,247 as anticip...
PAYTON v. USDA FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit JUL 29 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT CHARLIE A. PAYTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 02-2163 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant - Appellee. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-01-1043-LCS/KBM) Submitted on the briefs: Eric D. Dixon, Portales, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellant. David C. Iglesias, United States Attorney, and Raymond Hamilton, Assistant United States Attorney, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendant-Appellee. Before TACHA, Chief Judge, O'BRIEN and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Charles A. Payton, a Roosevelt County, New Mexico farmer, was terminated from the Department of Agriculture's Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) for planting and harvesting wheat on a thirty-five-acre parcel that had been dedicated as a conservation reserve. Mr. Payton contends that the Department was mistaken about the location of the conservation reserve. The Hearing Officer, after hearing testimony from various officials involved in administering the program, concluded that Mr. Payton is correct. The Hearing Officer was overruled by the Acting Director of the National Appeals Division (NAD). The questions before us are whether the decision of the Acting Director is subject to judicial review and, if so, whether it was arbitrary and capricious.(1) I. Background The CRP authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to contract with eligible farm owners and operators to remove agricultural land from farm production under an approved conservation plan, in exchange for government payments. Participants must implement a conservation plan, establish vegetative cover, and not allow grazing, harvesting, or other commercial use of the crop from the designated land. Various statutes and federal regulations define and govern these (1) After examining the briefs...
RIOGRANDE UNDERWRITE v PITTS FARMS INC IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40823 Summary Calendar RIO GRANDE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PITTS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _ December 18, 2001 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. (Rio Grande) appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its petition for a stay and order compelling arbitration. For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM. Pitts Farms, an onion grower, filed suit in state court alleging state law claims against Rio Grande for its failure to procure the right crop insurance coverage on Pitts' behalf.(1) When Pitts Farms sustained losses to its onion crop, it found that the insurance policy in place failed to designate its red and yellow onions into separate units. According to Pitts Farms, the failure to designate the onion types as separate insurable units as permitted by federal regulations prevented Pitts from fully recovering for its losses. Rio Grande seeks to avoid the litigation in state court by enforcing arbitration provisions in its contracts with Pitts Farms. Unable to obtain relief in state court, Rio Grande filed a petition in federal court requesting a stay and order compelling arbitration. Such relief is available in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only if the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying civil action. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Although Rio Grande has suggested numerous bases for jurisdiction, the district court properly found them to be without merit. First, Rio Grande argues that because its contracts with Pitts Farms relate to interstate commerce, it follows that the FAA applies and that the case may therefore be heard in federal c...
|
|
|