|
Colorado Lawyer Search - Listings for Basso Paul Atty
Name: Basso Paul Atty
Address: 7970 Sheridan Blvd Ste 2A Westminster, CO 80003
Phone Number: 303-650-6503
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
RIOGRANDE UNDERWRITE v PITTS FARMS INC IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 01-40823 Summary Calendar RIO GRANDE UNDERWRITERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, versus PITTS FARMS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas _ December 18, 2001 Before REAVLEY, HIGGINBOTHAM and WIENER, Circuit Judges. REAVLEY, Circuit Judge: Rio Grande Underwriters, Inc. (Rio Grande) appeals the district court's order dismissing, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, its petition for a stay and order compelling arbitration. For the reasons that follow we AFFIRM. Pitts Farms, an onion grower, filed suit in state court alleging state law claims against Rio Grande for its failure to procure the right crop insurance coverage on Pitts' behalf.(1) When Pitts Farms sustained losses to its onion crop, it found that the insurance policy in place failed to designate its red and yellow onions into separate units. According to Pitts Farms, the failure to designate the onion types as separate insurable units as permitted by federal regulations prevented Pitts from fully recovering for its losses. Rio Grande seeks to avoid the litigation in state court by enforcing arbitration provisions in its contracts with Pitts Farms. Unable to obtain relief in state court, Rio Grande filed a petition in federal court requesting a stay and order compelling arbitration. Such relief is available in federal district court under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) only if the court would have had subject matter jurisdiction over the underlying civil action. 9 U.S.C. § 4. Although Rio Grande has suggested numerous bases for jurisdiction, the district court properly found them to be without merit. First, Rio Grande argues that because its contracts with Pitts Farms relate to interstate commerce, it follows that the FAA applies and that the case may therefore be heard in federal c...
|
|
|