|
Indiana Lawyer Search - Listings for Key Walter Atty
Name: Key Walter Atty
Address: 755 E Main St Greenwood, IN 46143
Phone Number: 317-851-4115
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 03-1164.Argued December 8, 2004-Decided May 23, 2005* The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) establishes a federal policy of promoting and marketing beef and beef products. The Secretary of Agriculture has implemented the Act through a Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order), which creates a Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Beef Board) and an Operating Committee, and imposes an assessment, or "checkoff," on all sales and importation of cattle. The assessment funds, among other things, beef promotional campaigns approved by the Operating Committee and the Secretary. Respondents, associations whose members pay the checkoff and individuals whose cattle are subject to the checkoff, challenged the program on First Amendment grounds, relying on United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U. S. 405, in which this Court invalidated a mandatory checkoff that funded mushroom advertising. The District Court found that the Beef Act and Order unconstitutionally compel respondents to subsidize speech to which they object. Affirming, the Eighth Circuit held that compelled funding of speech may violate the First Amendment even when it is the government's speech. Held: Because the beef checkoff funds the Government's own speech, it is not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge. Pp. 5-15. (a) This Court has sustained First Amendment challenges in "compelled-subsidy" cases, in which the government requires an individual to subsidize a private message he disagrees with. See Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209. Keller and Abood led the Court to sustain a compelled-subsidy challenge to an assessment whose only purpose was to fund mushroom advertising. United Foods, supra, at 413, 415-416. However, the speech in United Foods...
Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1 v CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS FILED United States Cour 1000 t of Appeals Tenth Circuit MAR 22 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1, ELLSWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS, commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District, also known as Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1, Nos. 98_3337, 98_3340, Plaintiff_Appellant and Cross_ Appellee, 99_3075 & 99_3084 v. CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS, Defendant_Appellee and Cross_ Appellant. APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. No. CV_96_1297_WEB) Victor S. Nelson, of Victor S. Nelson, P.A., Wichita, Kansas, for the appellant. Allen G. Glendenning, of Watkins, Calcara, Rondeau, Friedeman, Bleeker, Glendenning & McVay, Chtd, Great Bend, Kansas, for the appellee. Before HENRY, BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District Judge.(1) (1) The Honorable Wayne E. Alley, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. HENRY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Rural Water District No. 1, Ellsworth County, Kansas (commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District) brought this case alleging that defendant City of Wilson, Kansas, (the City) violated 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) by providing domestic water service to customers in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Post Rock appeals the district court's refusal to grant a permanent injunction preventing the City from providing domestic water service in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock also appeals the district court's refusal to award all of its attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The City cross_appeals the district court's decision to grant a contingent injunction concerning the City's provision of water service in the Purma Addition. The City further appeals the district court's award of partial attorney fees to Post Rock under § 1988. We exe...
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...
|
|
|