|
Oregon Lawyer Search - Listings for Olin K R Atty
Name: Olin K R Atty
Address: 586 5th St Ste 200 Brookings, OR 97415
Phone Number: 541-469-2669
|
Specialties:
|
Elder Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
|
|
|
|
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...
UNITED STATES et al. v. UNITED FOODS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 00-276. Argued April 17, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act mandates that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales. Respondent refused to pay the assessment, claiming that it violates the First Amendment. It filed a petition challenging the assessment with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the United States filed an enforcement action in the District Court. After the administrative appeal was denied, respondent sought review in the District Court, which consolidated the two cases. In granting the Government summary judgment, the court found dispositive the decision in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U. S. 457, that the First Amendment was not violated when agricultural marketing orders, as part of a larger regulatory marketing scheme, required producers of California tree fruit to pay assessments for product advertising. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Glickman did not control because the mandated payments in this case were not part of a comprehensive statutory agricultural marketing program. Held: The assessment requirement violates the First Amendment. Pp. 2-11. (a) Even viewing the expression here as commercial speech, there is no basis under Glickman or this Court's other precedents to sustain the assessments. The First Amendment may prevent the government from, inter alia, compelling individuals to pay subsidies for speech to which they object. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209; Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1. Such precedents provide the beginning point for analysis here. Respondent wants to convey the message that its brand of mushrooms is superior to those grown by other producers, and it objects to being charged for a contrary message which seems to be f...
USA v MCCLATCHY IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 00-60332 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus CHARLES H. MCCLATCHY, JR., Defendants-Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, Greenville April 19, 2001 Before POLITZ, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges. CARL E. STEWART, Circuit Judge: Charles H. McClatchy, Jr. ("McClatchy") appeals his conviction and sentence for conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud. For the following reasons, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND McClatchy was convicted in a jury trial on six counts of a seven count indictment involving conversion of pledged crops, money laundering, engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property greater than $10,000 in value, and crop insurance fraud.(1) The facts giving rise to his indictment and conviction are as follows. McClatchy and his nephew, Charles B. McElmurray, III ("McElmurray"), were partners in 1994 in a farming partnership called the "McClatchy Planting Company" ("McClatchy Planting" or "the company"). McClatchy Planting planted, grew, and sold cotton and soybeans near Indianola in Sunflower County, Mississippi. In the spring of 1994, the company applied for financing with the Farmers Home Administration ("FmHA") and received an emergency loan in the amount of $261,170 and a 1994 farm operating loan in the amount of $200,000. At that time, McClatchy and McElmurray executed a security agreement in which they pledged to the FmHA their 1994 crops as collateral for the operating and emergency loans. They also executed Form FmHA 1962-1, Agreement for the Use of Proceeds/Release of Chattel Security ("Form 1962-1"). Form 1962-1 outlined the intended use of all crop proceeds, and it also state...
|
|
|