|
Colorado Lawyer Search - Listings for Warberg Sonja E Atty
Name: Warberg Sonja E Atty
Address: 3644 E County Road 16 Loveland, CO 80537
Phone Number: 970-669-4048
|
|
|
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...
USCA10 Opinion 04-2320.wpd FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit March 1, 2006 Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JICARILLA APACHE NATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 04-2320 RIO ARRIBA COUNTY; MOISES MORALES; ALFREDO MONTOYA, in his individual capacity; RAY TAFOYA, in his individual capacity; DAVID SALAZAR, in his individual capacity; LORENZO VALDEZ, Rio Arriba County Manager; ARTHUR R. RODARTE, Rio Arriba County Assessor; AGAPITO CANDELARIA, Rio Arriba County Chief Appraiser; and unknown John and Jane Does; each such natural persons in both his and her official and individual capacities; ANDREW CHAVEZ, Rio Arriba County Commissioner; ELIAS CORIZ, Defendants-Appellees. 1000 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO (D.C. No. CIV-02-1470 JB/RLP) Daniel I.S.J. Rey-Bear (Jenny J. Dumas, Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, with him on the briefs), Nordhaus, Haltom, Taylor, Taradash & Bladh, LLP, Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Harriet J. Hickman (R. Galen Reimer, Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, with her on the briefs), Gallagher, Casados & Mann, P.C., Albuquerque, New Mexico, for Defendants-Appellees. Before EBEL, HENRY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges. McCONNELL, Circuit Judge. Tax assessment is not an exact science, and the outcomes are rarely popular. Using small budgets and limited information, local assessors must make difficult judgments based on uncertain valuations-with the knowledge that higher tax bills are more likely to produce complaints of unfair treatment than thank you cards. Despite these limitations on exactingly precise tax assessment, the Jicarilla Apache Nation ("Nation") believes that the Rio Arriba County Assessor ("Assessor") violated the Equal Protection Clause in 2000 by changing the tax classification on thousands of acres of ...
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...
|
|
|