|
Oregon Lawyer Search - Listings for Chamberlin John Attorney
Name: Chamberlin John Attorney
Address: Corbett, OR 97019
Phone Number: 503-695-3200
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE v. FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY FILED 1000 United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit JUN 13 2002 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT GRAIN DEALERS MUTUAL INSURANCE No. 01-6225 COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FARMERS ALLIANCE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma (D.C. No. CIV-00-370-T) Mort G. Welch (Sherry L. Smith with him on the brief) of Welch & Smith, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Donald R. Wilson (Michael S. McMillin with him on the brief) of Fenton, Fenton, Smith, Reneau & Moon, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendant-Appellee. Before SEYMOUR, ALDISERT(1), and EBEL, Circuit Judges. ALDISERT, Circuit Judge. (1) Ruggero J. Aldisert, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation. This appeal requires us to interpret a farmowners-ranchowners insurance policy clause that excludes coverage for "bodily injury or property damage arising out of business pursuits," when the sequela of conducting a legitimate business activity on the property was the enhancement of the farm property covered by the policy. To do this, we must apply Oklahoma law in a dispute between two companies that have issued insurance policies. Robert and Mary McQuary, husband and wife, purchased a farmowners- ranchowners policy from Farmers Alliance Mutual Insurance Company, which covered a tract of thirty-three acres on which their dwelling is located. The policy named Robert and Mary McQuary as the insureds. Mr. and Mrs. McQuary are the sole shareholders and officers of R&M Fleet Services ("R&M"), a company located on the same property as their dwelling. When R&M entered into a contract to purchase and transport fly...
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -* FRANCES BROADDUS CRUTCHFIELD; HENRY RUFFIN BROADDUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellant, and UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant.No. 02-1946 GREATER RICHMOND PARTNERSHIP, INCORPORATED; GREATER RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; HANOVER BUSINESS COUNCIL; LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER AGENCIES, INCORPORATED (VAMWA), Amici Supporting Appellant. -* -* FRANCES BROADDUS CRUTCHFIELD; HENRY RUFFIN BROADDUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant-Appellant, and COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Defendant.No. 02-2153 GREATER RICHMOND PARTNERSHIP, INCORPORATED; GREATER RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; HANOVER BUSINESS COUNCIL; LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER AGENCIES, INCORPORATED (VAMWA), Amici Supporting Appellant. -* Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-253-3) Argued: January 24, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and James H. MICHAEL, Jr., Senior United District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. _ 2 Reversed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael and Senior Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: John Alan Bryson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Corps; William Gray Broaddus, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant County. William B. Ellis, ELLIS & THORP, P.L.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas L. Sanso- netti, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, M....
HILLSIDE DAIRY INC. et al. v. LYONS, SECRETARY, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE, et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 01-950. Argued April 22, 2003-Decided June 9, 2003* In most of the country, but not California, the minimum price paid to dairy farmers producing raw milk is regulated pursuant to federal marketing orders, which guarantee a uniform price for the producers, but through pooling mechanisms require the processors of different classes of dairy products to pay different prices. California has adopted a similar, although more complex, program to regulate the minimum prices paid by California processors to California producers. Three state statutes create California's milk marketing structure: 1935 and 1967 Acts establish milk pricing and pooling plans, while a 1947 Act governs the composition of milk products sold in the State. Under the state scheme, California processors of fluid milk pay a premium price (part of which goes into a price equalization pool) that is higher than the prices paid to producers. During the 1990's, it became profitable for some California processors to buy raw milk from out-of-state producers. In 1997, the California Department of Food and Agriculture amended its regulations to require contributions to the price equalization pool on some out-of-state purchases. Petitioners, out-of-state dairy farmers, brought these suits, alleging that the 1997 amendment unconstitutionally discriminates against them. Without reaching the merits, the District Court dismissed both cases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding, inter alia, that a 1996 federal statute immunized California's milk pricing and pooling laws from Commerce Clause challenge, and that the individual petitioners' Privileges and Immunities Clause claims failed because the 1997 amendment did not, on its face, create classifications based on any individual's residency or citizenship. Held: 1. California's milk pric...
|
|
|