|
Colorado Lawyer Search - Listings for Lockwood David L Atty
Name: Lockwood David L Atty
Address: Englewood, CO 80110
Phone Number: 303-741-1111
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
|
|
|
|
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...
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...
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...
|
|
|