Cases

905 P.2d 877 (1995) Steven Neil BREINHOLT, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Jan E. BREINHOLT, Defendant and Appellant. No. 940395-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. October 26, 1995. *878 L.G. Cutler, Salt Lake City, for Appellant. Joanne Pappas White, Price, for Appellee. Before DAVIS, Associate P.J., and GREENWOOD and WILKIN

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Idaho denied.

747 P.2d 433 (1987) Vie STEELE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Robert H. BREINHOLT dba Aspen Care Center, Defendant and Respondent. No. 860321-CA. Court of Appeals of Utah. December 21, 1987. James R. Hasenyager (argued), Marquardt, Hasenyager & Custen, Ogden, for plaintiff and appellant. Ford G. Scalley (argued), Steven K. Walkenhorst, Morgan, Scalley &

TUCKETT, Justice: This is an appeal by the plaintiffs from a summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs’ complaint. The plaintiffs are here seeking a reversal of that judgment. The plaintiffs filed their complaint in the court below in three separate counts wherein they seek relief as follows: (1) The plaintiffs seek to reform a lease entered into by the parties on the grounds of fraud and further seek compensa

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-appellant Love Equipment Rentals, Inc., sued the five appellees and three others on a promissory note. Judgment was asked for the unpaid balance of $56,632.06 plus interest and attorneys’ fees. The appellees stipulated with the appellant for a settlement of the claims against them. The stipulation, which was ap

406 F.Supp.2d 1132 (2005) FAIRCHILD FARMS, INC., Aageson Grain & Cattle, and R Land, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, National Appeals Division, Defendant. No. CV 05-22 GF-SEH. United States District Court, D. Montana, Great Falls Division. September 30, 2005. Beth Angus Baumstark, Sarah Vogel Law Firm, Bismarck, ND, Floyd D. Corder,

JUDGMENT This petition for review of an order of the Department of Agriculture was consid*239ered on the briefs and appendix filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34®. It is ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review be denied for the reasons stated in the memorandum accompanying this judgment.

JUDGMENT This appeal was considered on the record of the United States Department of Agriculture and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). For the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the decision of the Department of Agriculture be affirmed. Pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court, this dispos

JUDGMENT This cause was considered on the record compiled before the Secretary of Agriculture and on the briefs of the parties. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be DENIED for the reasons stated in the judgment of the *374court issued this date in No. 04-1128. As Mr. Taback makes clear, “the arguments of Post and Taback set f

351 F.3d 447 Robert B. MCCLOY, Jr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. No. 02-9543. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. December 2, 2003. Todd O. Lafferty, Gibson, Ochsner & Adkins, L.L.P., Amarillo, TX, for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, (J

SUMMARY ORDER Petitioner Hunts Point Tomato Co., Inc. (“Hunts”) petitions for review of an order of the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), which ordered publication of the facts and circumstances of its findings: that Hunts had repeatedly and flagrantly violated the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. §§ 499a-499s. Petitioner contends, inter alia, that the decision not

938 F.Supp. 762 (1996) UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Wayne TA, Defendant. No. 96-CR-71 W. United States District Court, D. Utah, Central Division. September 3, 1996. Jeffrey Breinholt, Matthew Howell, Asst. U.S. Attys., Salt Lake City, UT, for Plaintiff. Paul T. Moxley, Robert E. Mansfield, Moxley Jones & Campbell L.C., Salt Lake City, UT, for D

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge SENTELLE. SENTELLE, Circuit Judge. Wholesale produce merchant Coosemans Specialties, Inc., petitions for review of a decision by the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture to revoke the company’s license for violations of the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. The Secretary concluded that the company

JUDGMENT This cause was considered on the record compiled before the Secretary of Agriculture and on the briefs of the parties. It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review be DENIED for the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum. Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein

KATZMANN, Circuit Judge: The matter at hand calls upon us to interpret the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (“PACA”), 7 U.S.C. § 499b, et seq., specifically, to determine whether a PACA licensee bears an implied duty to refrain from paying illegal gratuities to a United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) inspector, and the scope of the circumsta

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge RANDOLPH. RANDOLPH, Circuit Judge: This case returns to us after remand on JSG Trading Corp.’s petition for review of a Department of Agriculture order adjudging it guilty of commercial bribery and revoking its hcense to sell produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. We outlined many of the fi

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge GARLAND. GARLAND, Circuit Judge: Kirby Produce Company, Inc. petitions for review of an order of the Department of Agriculture, which revoked its license as a merchant of perishable agricultural products for not promptly paying for fruit and vegetable shipments, in violation of the Perishable Agricultural Commod

MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judge. John Conforti appeals the Secretary of Agriculture’s decision sanctioning him for violating the employment restrictions in the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act of 1930, 7 U.S.C. § 499h(b) (1980) (“PACA”). We uphold the Secretary’s determination that Conforti violated PACA, but modify the penalty that the Secretary imposed.

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge HENDERSON. KAREN LeCRAFT HENDERSON, Circuit Judge: Michael Norinsberg (Michael or petitioner) petitions for review of the determination by the United States Department of Agriculture (Agriculture or Agency) that he was “responsibly connected” with the Norinsberg Corporation (Corporation) at the time it violate

SACHS, District Judge This petition for review stems from consolidated Department of Agriculture disciplinary proceedings under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. § 499a et seq. (PACA), as amended, in which petitioner Robert Heimann was found to have committed repeated violations of the Act by failing to make full and prompt payment for pur