|
Louisiana Lawyer Search - Listings for Marchand Sidney A III Atty
Name: Marchand Sidney A III Atty
Address: 320 Chetimatches St Donaldsonville, LA 70346
Phone Number: 225-473-3811
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USCA6 Opinion 03a0319p.06 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0319p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _ H.C. MacClaren, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. No. 02-3006 On Appeal from an Order of the Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. No. D-99-0012. Argued: June 11, 2003 Decided and Filed: September 4, 2003 Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.(*) _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _ OPINION _ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner H.C. MacClaren, Inc. (MacClaren), a wholesale produce broker, appeals a final order of the Secretary of Agriculture revoking its license pursuant...
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1233 RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. Terrence M. O’Connor, Law Office of Terrence M. O’Connor, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellant. Maureen A. Delaney, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; Mark Melnick, Assistant Director. Appealed from: Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1233 RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. _ DECIDED: April 18, 2002 _ Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. MAYER, Chief Judge. Ridge Runner Forestry appeals from the decision of the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals dismissing its cause of action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. Ridge Runner Forestry v. Sec’y of Agric., AGBCA No. 2000-161-1 (Feb. 13, 2001). Because no contract had been formed, we affirm the board’s decision. Background Ridge Runner Forestry is a fire protection company located in the Pacific Northwest. In response to a request for quotations ("RFQ") issued by the Forestry Service, Ridge Runner submitted a proposal and ultimately signed a document entitled Pacific Northwest Interagency Engine Tender Agreement ("Tender Agreement"). The Tender Agreement incorporated the RFQ in its entirety, including the following two provisions in bold faced lettering:...
HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. et al. v. LYONS, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 01-950. Argued April 22, 2003-Decided June 9, 2003* In most of the country, but not California, the minimum price paid to dairy farmers producing raw milk is regulated pursuant to federal marketing orders, which guarantee a uniform price for the producers, but through pooling mechanisms require the processors of different classes of dairy products to pay different prices. California has adopted a similar, although more complex, program to regulate the minimum prices paid by California processors to California producers. Three state statutes create California's milk marketing structure: 1935 and 1967 Acts establish milk pricing and pooling plans, while a 1947 Act governs the composition of milk products sold in the State. Under the state scheme, California processors of fluid milk pay a premium price (part of which goes into a price equalization pool) that is higher than the prices paid to producers. During the 1990's, it became profitable for some California processors to buy raw milk from out-of-state producers. In 1997, the California Department of Food and Agriculture amended its regulations to require contributions to the price equalization pool on some out-of-state purchases. Petitioners, out-of-state dairy farmers, brought these suits, alleging that the 1997 amendment unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Without reaching the merits, the District Court dismissed both cases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, that a 1996 federal statute immunized California's milk pricing and pooling laws from Commerce Clause challenge, and that the individual petitioners' Privileges and Immunities Clause claims failed because the 1997 amendment did not, on its face, create classifications based on any individual's residency or citizenship. Held: 1. California's milk pric...
|
|
|