|
Colorado Lawyer Search - Listings for Brewer Law Offices Pc
Name: Brewer Law Offices Pc
Address: 106 N French Breckenridge, CO 80424
Phone Number: 970-453-4753
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
COPELAND v. VENEMAN United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1326 1000 BILL J. COPELAND, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. Bill J. Copeland, of Banning,California, pro se. Michael N. O'Connell, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, for appellee. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Harold D. Lester, Jr., Assistant Director. Appealed from: Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1326 BILL J. COPELAND, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. _ DECIDED: November 26, 2003 _ Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and DYK, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from a Board of Contract Appeals decision denying appeals of default terminations on two contracts and denying other numerous discrete claims. BACKGROUND In September 1991, the appellant was awarded two construction contracts by the National Forest Service to construct and reconstruct trails in the San Bernadino National Forest. Contract No. 50-9JA9-1-1L039 ("the Trail Contract") was awarded in the amount of $112,900 with a completion date of May 21, 1992, and Contract No. 50-9JA9-1-1L026 ("the Comfort Station Contract") was awarded in the amount of $147,777 with a completion date of June 20, 1992. The appellant was to be paid a series of progress payments. These contracts incorporated provisions of the Davis Bacon Act ("DBA"), Pub. L. No. 107-217, 2002 U.S.C.C.A.N. (116 Stat.) 1062, 1150-1153 (2002), which sets wage and payment guidelines for contractors engaged in public works contracts with the federal government in excess of $2,000. During performance of these contracts in March of 1992, various employees complained of DBA wage violations on the Trail Contract. The Forest Serv...
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1233 RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. Terrence M. O’Connor, Law Office of Terrence M. O’Connor, of Alexandria, Virginia, argued for appellant. Maureen A. Delaney, Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for appellee. With her on the brief were Stuart Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; Mark Melnick, Assistant Director. Appealed from: Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 01-1233 RIDGE RUNNER FORESTRY, Appellant, v. Ann M. Veneman, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee. _ DECIDED: April 18, 2002 _ Before MAYER, Chief Judge, CLEVENGER and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. MAYER, Chief Judge. Ridge Runner Forestry appeals from the decision of the Department of Agriculture Board of Contract Appeals dismissing its cause of action for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 41 U.S.C. §§ 601-613. Ridge Runner Forestry v. Sec’y of Agric., AGBCA No. 2000-161-1 (Feb. 13, 2001). Because no contract had been formed, we affirm the board’s decision. Background Ridge Runner Forestry is a fire protection company located in the Pacific Northwest. In response to a request for quotations ("RFQ") issued by the Forestry Service, Ridge Runner submitted a proposal and ultimately signed a document entitled Pacific Northwest Interagency Engine Tender Agreement ("Tender Agreement"). The Tender Agreement incorporated the RFQ in its entirety, including the following two provisions in bold faced lettering:...
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...
|
|
|