|
Oregon Lawyer Search - Listings for Doyle Robert Atty
Name: Doyle Robert Atty
Address: 142 NW Hawthorne Ave Bend, OR 97701
Phone Number: 541-383-3242
|
Specialties:
|
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
JAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of AppealsJAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JAMES ISLAND PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 00-1910 and ANDREW C. SMITH, treasurer of Charleston County, in his official capacity; TOWN OF FOLLY BEACH; PEGGY MOSELEY, auditor of Charleston County, in her official capacity; WILLIAM O. THOMAS, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3557-2-11) Argued: April 4, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Williams and Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: William B. Regan, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Trent Marrs Kernodle, KERNODLE, TAYLOR & ROOT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frances I. Cantwell, Carl W. Stent, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. _ OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The James Island Public Service District, which provides fire pro- tection services to rural areas in South Carolina, seeks protection under § 306(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (1994), against certain actions taken by the City of Charleston. The district court found the District entitled to this protection. We affirm. I. Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 1961 in part to provide insured loans to sparsely populated rural communities for a variety of otherwise unaffordable services and improvements. See S. Rep. No. 566 (1961), reprinted in 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2243, 2305-06. One por- tion of the Act, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Act (FmHA), but renam...
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...
PACHECO v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit APR 30 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT VERONICA PACHECO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-1170 WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually; and N. LYLE JOHNSTON, individually, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 01-RB-851 (CBS)) Submitted on the briefs:(1) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam D. Starritt and Michael C. Santo, Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco sued Defendants Whiting Farms Inc. and its controlling owners alleging they failed to pay her overtime wages and terminated her employment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. FLSA generally requires employers to pay their employees one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay (overtime) for each hour worked in excess of forty hours during any given week. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). FLSA's overtime wage requirements do not apply, however, "with respect to . . . any employee employed in agriculture[.]" Id. 213(b)(12). FLSA also prohibits retaliation against an employee because she engaged in protected activity under the Act. Id. 215(a)(3). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's "agricultural...
|
|
|