The case involved a contract dispute between Sunrich Food Group, Inc. (as successor to First Light Foods) and Pacific Foods of Oregon, Inc., in which Pacific Foods asserted a counterclaim seeking cancellation of Sunrich's trademarks SOY-UM and RICE-UM on grounds of alleged fraud on the PTO and lack of quality control by the owner. Sunrich moved for partial summary judgment on the counterclaim, and Pacific Foods cross-moved. The court granted Sunrich's motion, denied the cross-motion, and dismissed the counterclaim with prejudice. The core reasoning was that Pacific Foods was estopped from challenging the validity of the marks because the 1998 Packing Agreement, prepared on Pacific Foods' letterhead and signed by its president, expressly stated that First Light Foods was the sole and exclusive owner of the SOY-UM and RICE-UM brands.
This case concerns a lawyer's federal court challenge to Oregon statutes requiring payment of assessments to the Oregon State Bar's Professional Liability Fund, with automatic suspension for nonpayment, on grounds that the provisions violate due process and constitute an unconstitutional taking or improper delegation of legislative authority. The plaintiff had previously litigated and lost identical claims in state court proceedings that ended with affirmance by the Oregon Court of Appeals and denial of review by the Oregon Supreme Court. The federal district court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that claim preclusion and issue preclusion barred relitigation of the same causes of action and issues against the same parties. The court further noted that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine independently precluded federal district court review of the state court judgment.
The case concerned environmental groups and the Nez Perce Tribe suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over its operation of four dams on the lower Snake River, claiming the dams violated the Clean Water Act by failing to meet Washington state's water quality standards for temperature and dissolved gas. The plaintiffs challenged the Corps' 1995 and 1998 Records of Decision as final agency actions that did not ensure compliance with those standards under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and the Tribe, denied the Corps' cross-motion and request for a stay, and ruled that the 1998 Record of Decision was arbitrary and capricious because the administrative record showed the agency had not adequately considered or addressed its Clean Water Act obligations. The court remanded the matter to the Corps to issue a new decision addressing compliance within sixty days.
The case involved petitioner Harry D. Detwiler's effort to recover $34,905 in cash seized by DEA agents from his property during a search that uncovered a marijuana growing operation on another of his properties. The DEA had initiated an administrative forfeiture proceeding, provided notice, and ultimately declared the currency forfeited after Detwiler submitted a petition for remission or mitigation rather than filing a formal claim of ownership and cost bond. The court granted the government's motion to dismiss, holding that it lacked jurisdiction because Detwiler had not complied with the statutory requirements of 19 U.S.C. § 1608 to contest the forfeiture in federal court. The opinion reasoned that once the administrative process concluded without a proper claim and bond, the forfeiture was final and not subject to later judicial review under 28 U.S.C. § 1355.
This case concerns a challenge by environmental groups to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' operation of four dams on the Lower Snake River, alleging that the dams cause violations of Washington state's water quality standards for temperature, dissolved gas, and antidegradation in breach of the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring compliance with those standards. The court denied all pending motions for summary judgment, ruling that it could not resolve the merits without examining the administrative record underlying the Corps' 1995 and 1998 Records of Decision. Under the APA, the court must determine whether the agency's actions were arbitrary, capricious, or not in accordance with law, including the obligation of federal agencies to comply with state water quality standards.
In Gatliff v. Apfel, the plaintiff sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) of the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income for the period from March 23, 1993, to May 24, 1995. The Commissioner moved to remand the case for further administrative proceedings, conceding that the ALJ's decision was unclear and failed to adequately explain the rejection of the plaintiff's credibility and medical evidence. The plaintiff opposed further proceedings and sought reversal with an award of benefits. The court granted the motion to remand but ordered an award of benefits, concluding that the record contained substantial evidence of disability during the relevant period, the ALJ had not provided adequate reasons for rejecting treating and examining physicians' opinions, and no additional evidence or rationale was needed.