|
Oklahoma Lawyer Search - Listings for Accident Attorneys of America
Name: Accident Attorneys of America
Address: 3233 E Memorial Ste Oklahoma City, OK 73113
Phone Number: 405-478-9500
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Bankruptcy Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
MONSANTO COMPANY v. MCFARLING United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1177, -1228 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOMAN MCFARLING, Defendant-Appellant. Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also on the brief was Joseph C. Orlet, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, of St. Louis, Missouri. Jim Waide, Waide & Associates, P.A., of Tupelo, Mississippi, argued for defendant-appellant. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge Catherine D. Perry United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1177, -1228 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOMAN MCFARLING, Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: April 9, 2004 _ Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri entered summary judgment against defendant Homan McFarling and in favor of the Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on some, but not all, of the claims being litigated. See Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, No. 4:00CV84 CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting final judgment under Rule 54(b)); (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting Monsanto's motions for summary judgment). The district court held that, when McFarling replanted some of Monsanto's patented ROUNDUP READYŽ soybeans that he had saved from his prior year's crop, McFarling breached the Technology Agreement that he had signed as a condition of his purchase of the patented seeds. The district court also held that McFarling had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that prevented entry of summary judgment on any of his counterclaims or his defenses to Monsanto's breach-of-contract claim. Finally, the district court held that a liquidated damages provisio...
LAMPE v. WILLIAMSON FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit JUN 3 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT In re: DONALD R. LAMPE and SHELIA L. LAMPE, Debtors. DONALD R. LAMPE and SHELIA L. LAMPE, Appellees, v. No. 02-3221 DARCY D. WILLIAMSON, Chapter 7 Trustee, Appellant, and IOLA BANK & TRUST CO. KANSAS BANKERS ASSOCIATION, Amicus Curiae. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE TENTH CIRCUIT (B.A.P. No. KS-01-007) Submitted on the briefs: Darcy D. Williamson, Trustee, Topeka, Kansas, for the Appellant. William E. Metcalf, Metcalf & Justus, Topeka, Kansas, for the Appellees. Anne L. Baker, Wright, Henson, Somers, Sebelius, Clark & Baker, LLP, Topeka, Kansas, filed an Amicus Curiae Brief on behalf of Kansas Bankers Association in Support of Appellant. Before LUCERO, BALDOCK, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge.(1) Debtors Donald and Shelia Lampe are husband and wife farmers who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Lampes each claimed as exempt from the bankruptcy estate $7500 worth of farm equipment as "tools of the trade" under the applicable Kansas exemption statute. The Trustee objected to Shelia Lampe's claim, arguing she did not have a sufficient ownership interest in the farm equipment to claim the exemption. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas agreed with the Trustee, and held Shelia Lampe could not claim the exemption. The Lampes appealed. The United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Tenth Circuit (BAP) reversed, holding Shelia Lampe was entitled to the "tools of the trade" exemption. The Trustee appeals, arguing Shelia Lampe does not have an ownership interest in the farm equipment. The Trustee (1) After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously to honor the parties' request for a decision on the briefs without oral ar 1000 gument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f). The case therefore is...
|
|
|