TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Corbin Farm Service, Patrick William Feeney, Frank Harry Michaud, Jr., and John Richard Harris

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CORBIN FARM SERVICE, Patrick William Feeney, Frank Harry Michaud, Jr., and John Richard Harris, Defendants-Appellees

United States v. Corbin Farm Serv., Patrick William Feeney, Frank Harry Michaud, Jr., & John Richard Harris, 578 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1978)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
July 12, 1978
Docket
No. 78-1286
Judges
Anderson, Browning, Carter, Per Curiam
Citations
578 F.2d 2598 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 2061512 ERC (BNA) 131012 ERC 13101978 U.S. App. LEXIS 10216

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the United States from a judgment of the district court dismissing nine counts of an information filed against defendants for multiplicity. The sole issue is whether the proper unit of prosecution for the killing of ducks under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), 16 U.S.C. §§ 703 et seq., is each duck killed. The district court ruled that multiple bird deaths resulting from a single transaction cannot be separately charged under the MBTA. We affirm.

The defendants were each involved in various capacities with the application of Furadan 4, a registered pesticide, to an alfalfa field which allegedly caused the death of more than 1,000 American Wigeons, a migratory duck. Corbin Farm Service is the dealer/distributor of the Fura-dan. John Richard Harris is an employee of Corbin who provided pesticide advice to farmers with the expectation that they would purchase from Corbin. Patrick W. Feeney is the owner of the alfalfa field which was sprayed. Frank H. Michaud, Jr., is the licensed aerial operator who sprayed the field.

The United States, contending it has prosecutorial discretion to charge a violation of the MBTA for each individual duck killed chose ten Wigeons and charged Feeney, Michaud and Harris with their deaths in ten separate counts of a twelve count information. The remaining two counts alleged violations of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. § 136 et seq,, but are unrelated to this appeal.

. The defendants filed numerous pretrial motions seeking, inter alia, dismissal of nine of the ten MBTA counts for multiplicity. After extensive briefing the district court filed a lengthy opinion disposing of each of the motions. We affirm the district court and adopt its opinion on the issue of multiplicity as our own. The relevant part of the district court’s opinion can be found at United States v. Corbin Farm Service, et al., 444 F.Supp. 510, 527-31 (E.D.Cal.1978) (We adopt the district court’s decision beginning with “(1) Multiplicity” at the top of 444 F.Supp. 527 and continuing through the first full paragraph of the second column at 444 F.Supp. 531 , ending with the sentence: “Accordingly, nine of the ten counts brought against defendants Harris, Feeney and Michaud under the MBTA are dismissed.”).

AFFIRMED.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 18 cases

View all citing references →
1979: 11980: 31982: 11983: 11985: 11991: 21994: 11995: 11996: 21999: 12007: 12012: 22015: 119792026peak 1980 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Michael H. Weitzenhoff Thomas W. Mariani35 F.3d 1275 (9th Cir. 1994)
  2. Quick v. State599 P.2d 712 (Alaska 1979)
  3. Mahler v. United States Forest Service927 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Ind. 1996)
  4. United States v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc.45 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999)
  5. United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.893 F. Supp. 2d 841 (S.D. Tex. 2012)
  6. Lipoi Alaelua v. Immigration and Naturalization Service45 F.3d 1379 (9th Cir. 1995)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Douglas Crooked Arm788 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2015)
  2. United States v. Citgo Petroleum Corp.893 F. Supp. 2d 841 (S.D. Tex. 2012)
  3. United States v. Brigham Oil & Gas, L.P.840 F. Supp. 2d 1202 (D.N.D. 2012)
  4. United States v. Zak486 F. Supp. 2d 208 (D. Mass. 2007)
  5. United States v. Moon Lake Electric Ass'n, Inc.45 F. Supp. 2d 1070 (D. Colo. 1999)
  6. Mahler v. United States Forest Service927 F. Supp. 1559 (S.D. Ind. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Service, 444 F. Supp. 510 (E.D. Cal. 1978) 23

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list