|
Colorado Lawyer Search - Listings for Shipps Thomas H Atty
Name: Shipps Thomas H Atty
Address: 835 E 2nd Ave Side Durango, CO 81301
Phone Number: 970-247-1755
|
Specialties:
|
Real Estate Law
Water Rights Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
|
|
|
|
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...
BELL v. FUR BREEDERS AGRIC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit NOV 7 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JOHN M. BELL, a/k/a Jack Bell; JOHN ROBERT BELL, a/k/a Bob Bell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 01-4252 v. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE, a cooperative organized under the laws of Utah; DANE DIXON, JACK MARCHANT, STAN PETERSON, STAN STUART, KENT VERNON, and RICK WESTWOOD, former directors/members of Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 96-CV-939-ST) Roy B. Moore (Tiani Xochitl Coleman, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs) of Roy B. Moore P.C. & Associates, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiffs- Appellants. Perrin R. Love (Wendy B. Crowther of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson; and R. Scott Rawlings with him on the brief) of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Before HARTZ and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from an action brought by John M. (Jack) Bell and John Robert (Bob) Bell against Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative and its former directors and members of the board of directors. The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative, Fur Breeders committed antitrust violations pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a). The Bells contend Fur Breeders violated antitrust laws because the discounted price it charged the Bells for feed they hauled themselves did not cover their actual costs, thereby limiting their ability to remain competitive with other cooperative members who ranched within the cooperative's delivery route and paid a different price for delivered feed. The Bells appeal the district court's order granting...
LA FED LAND BNK v FARM CRDT ADMIN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsLA FED LAND BNK v 1000 FARM CRDT ADMIN United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 8, 2002 Decided July 29, 2003 No. 01-5366 Louisiana Federal Land Bank Association, FLCA, et al., Appellants v. Farm Credit Administration, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 00cv01582) Daniel Joseph argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs was Beth Hirschfelder Wilensky. C. Fairley Spillman entered an appearance. Edward Himmelfarb, Attorney, U.S. Department of Jus- tice, argued the cause for federal appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Robert S. Greenspan, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice. Kathleen C. Kauffman argued the cause for appellee First South Farm Credit, ACA. With her on the brief were Nels J. Ackerson and L. Keith Parsons. Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Edwards and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg. Ginsburg, Chief Judge: The Farm Credit Administration promulgated a rule eliminating geographical restrictions upon certain activities of lenders within the Farm Credit System, and thereby put them into competition with each other. The plaintiffs-appellants - lenders within the System - challenged the rule in district court, claiming it conflicted with the Farm Credit Act and with a 1992 Amendment thereto, and that the FCA promulgated the rule in violation of the procedural requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. The dis- trict court, holding the FCA had complied with the proper procedures and the plaintiffs' statutory arguments were ei- ther without merit or had been forfeited, entered summary judgment for the FCA. We hold the Agency was required by the APA to address the plaintiffs' comment before promulgating the rule. For that reason we reverse the...
|
|
|