|
Indiana Lawyer Search - Listings for Schleter Davidson Nita Atty at Law
Name: Schleter Davidson Nita Atty at Law
Address: 107 N McCreary St Fort Branch, IN 47648
Phone Number: 812-753-4030
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USA v MCCLATCHY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES H. MCCLATCHY, JR., Defendants-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville April 19, 2001 Before POLITZ, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Charles H. McClatchy, Jr. ("McClatchy") appeals his conviction and sentence for conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McClatchy was convicted in a jury trial on six counts of a seven count indictment involving conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud.(1) The facts giving rise to his indictment and conviction are as follows. McClatchy and his nephew, Charles B. McElmurray, III ("McElmurray"), were partners in 1994 in a farming partnership called the "McClatchy Planting Company" ("McClatchy Planting" or "the company"). McClatchy Planting planted, grew, and sold cotton and soybeans near Indianola in Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the spring of 1994, the company applied for financing with the Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA") and received an emergency loan in the amount of $261,170 and a 1994 farm operating loan in the amount of $200,000. At that time, McClatchy and McElmurray executed a security agreement in which they pledged to the FmHA their 1994 crops as collateral for the operating and emergency loans. They also executed Form FmHA 1962-1, Agreement for the Use of Proceeds/Release of Chattel Security ("Form 1962-1"). Form 1962-1 outlined the intended use of all crop proceeds, and it also state...
MONSANTO CO. v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.) Defendant-Appellant. John F. Lynch, Howrey Simon Arnold & White, LLP, of Houston, Texas, argued for plaintiff-appellee. With him on the brief were Susan K. Knoll, Richard L. Stanley, Steven G. Spears, and Connie Flores Jones. Of counsel on the brief was Joseph P. Conran, Husch & Eppenberger, of St. Louis, Missouri. Eric H. Weisblatt, Burns, Doane, Swecker & Mathis, L.L.P., of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for defendant-appellant. With him on the brief were Susan M. Dadio, R. Danny Huntington, Ronni S. Jillions, Barbara Webb Walker, and Bruce T. Wieder. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge E. Richard Webber United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1201 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BAYER BIOSCIENCE N.V. (formerly known as Aventis CropScience N.V.), Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: March 30, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, BRYSON, and PROST, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. Monsanto Company filed an action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, No. 4:00CV1915, seeking a declaratory judgment that its transgenic corn products did not infringe four patents owned by Aventis CropScience N.V., a predecessor of appellant Bayer BioScience N.V. The patents at issue claim a variety of methods and products relating to the insertion of bacterial DNA into plants to give the plants resistance to certain insects. Besides contending that it did not infringe any of the four patents, Monsanto alleged that the four patents were unenforceable and that various claims of the patents were invalid. Aventis counterclaimed, alleging that Monsanto infringed certain claims of each of the four patents. ...
|
|
|