|
South Carolina Lawyer Search - Listings for Derrick Dirk J Atty
Name: Derrick Dirk J Atty
Address: 802 Main St Conway, SC 29526
Phone Number: 843-248-7486
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE v. FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY FILED 1000 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit JUN 13 2002 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE No. 01-6225 COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. CIV-00-370-T) Mort G. Welch (Sherry L. Smith with him on the brief) of Welch & Smith, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Donald R. Wilson (Michael S. McMillin with him on the brief) of Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. Before SEYMOUR, ALDISERT(1), and EBEL, Circuit Judges. ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. (1) Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. This appeal requires us to interpret a farmowners-ranchowners insurance policy clause that excludes coverage for "bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits," when the sequela of conducting a legitimate business activity on the property was the enhancement of the farm property covered by the policy. To do this, we must apply Oklahoma law in a dispute between two companies that have issued insurance policies. Robert and Mary McQuary, husband and wife, purchased a farmowners- ranchowners policy from Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, which covered a tract of thirty-three acres on which their dwelling is located. The policy named Robert and Mary McQuary as the insureds. Mr. and Mrs. McQuary are the sole shareholders and officers of R&M Fleet Services ("R&M"), a company located on the same property as their dwelling. When R&M entered into a contract to purchase and transport fly...
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...
|
|
|