|
Missouri Lawyer Search - Listings for Adams Jack J
Name: Adams Jack J
Address: O Fallon, MO 63366
Phone Number: 636-240-7696
|
Specialties:
|
Criminal Trial
Social Security & Disability Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
BELL v. FUR BREEDERS AGRIC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit NOV 7 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JOHN M. BELL, a/k/a Jack Bell; JOHN ROBERT BELL, a/k/a Bob Bell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 01-4252 v. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE, a cooperative organized under the laws of Utah; DANE DIXON, JACK MARCHANT, STAN PETERSON, STAN STUART, KENT VERNON, and RICK WESTWOOD, former directors/members of Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 96-CV-939-ST) Roy B. Moore (Tiani Xochitl Coleman, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs) of Roy B. Moore P.C. & Associates, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiffs- Appellants. Perrin R. Love (Wendy B. Crowther of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson; and R. Scott Rawlings with him on the brief) of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Before HARTZ and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from an action brought by John M. (Jack) Bell and John Robert (Bob) Bell against Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative and its former directors and members of the board of directors. The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative, Fur Breeders committed antitrust violations pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a). The Bells contend Fur Breeders violated antitrust laws because the discounted price it charged the Bells for feed they hauled themselves did not cover their actual costs, thereby limiting their ability to remain competitive with other cooperative members who ranched within the cooperative's delivery route and paid a different price for delivered feed. The Bells appeal the district court's order granting...
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...
LA FED LAND BNK v FARM CRDT ADMIN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsLA FED LAND BNK v 1000 FARM CRDT ADMIN United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2002 Decided July 29, 2003 No. 01-5366 Louisiana Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA, et al., Appellants v. Farm Credit Administration, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 00cv01582) Daniel Joseph argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Beth Hirschfelder Wilensky. C. Fairley Spillman entered an appearance. Edward Himmelfarb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Kathleen C. Kauffman argued the cause for appellee First South Farm Credit, ACA. With her on the brief were Nels J. Ackerson and L. Keith Parsons. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: The Farm Credit Administration promulgated a rule eliminating geographical restrictions upon certain activities of lenders within the Farm Credit System, and thereby put them into competition with each other. The plaintiffs-appellants - lenders within the System - challenged the rule in district court, claiming it conflicted with the Farm Credit Act and with a 1992 Amendment thereto, and that the FCA promulgated the rule in violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The dis- trict court, holding the FCA had complied with the proper procedures and the plaintiffs' statutory arguments were ei- ther without merit or had been forfeited, entered summary judgment for the FCA. We hold the Agency was required by the APA to address the plaintiffs' comment before promulgating the rule. For that reason we reverse the...
|
|
|