Lamers Dairy Inc v. USDA (ED Wis.)
Before RIPPLE, ROVNER and DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judges.Bressner, Kermit J. v. Ambroziak, Shrilee (ND Ill.)
RIPPLE, Circuit Judge. Lamers Dairy (“Lamers”) sought an exemption from Milk Marketing Order No. 30, promulgated under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 7 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. After the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture (“the USDA”) denied the petition in a final administrative order, Lamers sought review in the district court. The USDA counterclaimed for enforcement of the Secretary’s decision and for a judgment against Lamers in an amount equal to the unpaid monetary assessments due under the terms of the marketing order. The district court granted summary judgment to the USDA on Lamers’ complaint and on the USDA’s counterclaim. It ordered further proceedings on the amount due. Subsequently, the district court denied a motion for reconsideration by Lamers and entered an amended judgment awarding the Government $850,931.26. Lamers appeals. For the reasons set forth in the following opinion, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
Before BAUER, MANION, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.Leyva, Crisanto v. Ashcroft, John [Appeal from the Board of Immigration Appeals]
MANION, Circuit Judge. Over twenty years ago, Kermit J. Bressner sold his business to Dennis Ambroziak for cash and a note for $342,000 for the balance due. * * *Dennis Ambroziak owes Kermit Bressner a significant sum of money. The facts we have been presented (which we must here accept as true) show that Dennis has manipulated his way out of paying this debt for two decades. We, like the district court, do not find his conduct admirable. The district court did not err, however, in dismissing the Bressner’s complaint. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a post-judgment motion to amend. The district court is AFFIRMED.
Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and MANION and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.Snyder, James R. v. Nolen, Jack T. (SD Ill.)
MANION, Circuit Judge. Crisanto Leyva, an illegal alien, appeals from the Attorney General’s final judgment to deny his application for cancellation of removal. Because we lack jurisdiction over this appeal, we dismiss.
Before EASTERBROOK, RIPPLE and KANNE, Circuit Judges.Judge Easterbrook, "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment,' begins at p. 21; Judge Kanne, also "concurring in part and concurring in the judgment,' begins at p. 24; Judge Ripple, dissenting, beings at p. 27. The opinion is 43 pages long, was argued Sept. 20, 2002, and decided Aug. 13, 2004. I'm sure there is an interesting history to this case, but I don't know it. Posted by Marcia Oddi at August 13, 2004 03:38 PM
PER CURIAM. James Snyder filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Jack Nolen, Clerk of the Circuit Court of Saline County, Illinois. The complaint alleged that Mr. Nolen had violated Mr. Snyder’s constitutional right of access to the courts when Mr. Nolen prevented Mr. Snyder from prosecuting a domestic relations action for dissolution of marriage and a temporary restraining order in the state court. The district court dismissed Mr. Snyder’s complaint on the alternate grounds that it did not state a constitutional claim, that Mr. Nolen was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity and that Mr. Nolen was entitled to qualified immunity. Mr. Snyder appealed, and this court now affirms.It is the unanimous opinion of the court that Mr. Nolen is not protected by absolute quasi-judicial immunity. Nevertheless, it is the opinion of the majority of the panel that Mr. Snyder has not stated a claim for a constitutional violation of right to access to the courts; the individual judges, however, differ with respect to how they arrive at that determination. A third member of the panel is of the opinion that Mr. Snyder’s complaint states a constitutional violation and that Mr. Nolen is not entitled to qualified immunity on that claim.
This per curiam opinion sets forth the procedural background of the case and articulates the court’s holding with respect to the issue of absolute quasi-judicial immunity. The separate opinions of the panel majority follow, as does that of the panel’s dissenting member.