|
Florida Lawyer Search - Listings for Hansen Gregory S Atty
Name: Hansen Gregory S Atty
Address: 930 S Harbor City Blvd Melbourne, FL 32901
Phone Number: 321-984-3300
|
Specialties:
|
Commercial & Banking Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Trial Civil
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
PACHECO v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit APR 30 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT VERONICA PACHECO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-1170 WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually; and N. LYLE JOHNSTON, individually, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 01-RB-851 (CBS)) Submitted on the briefs:(1) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam D. Starritt and Michael C. Santo, Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco sued Defendants Whiting Farms Inc. and its controlling owners alleging they failed to pay her overtime wages and terminated her employment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. FLSA generally requires employers to pay their employees one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay (overtime) for each hour worked in excess of forty hours during any given week. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). FLSA's overtime wage requirements do not apply, however, "with respect to . . . any employee employed in agriculture[.]" Id. 213(b)(12). FLSA also prohibits retaliation against an employee because she engaged in protected activity under the Act. Id. 215(a)(3). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's "agricultural...
U.S. v. INN FOODS, INC. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1000 ; 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Michael S. Dufault, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Robert Scott Whiteley, Horton, Whiteley & Cooper, of Oakland, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Craig A. Mitchell, of Newport Beach, California. Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Senior Judge Nicholas Tsoucalas United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ DECIDED: September 13, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade dismissing the government's complaint against Inn Foods, Inc., as time-barred. United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003); United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003) (denying motion for reconsideration). Because we conclude that the complaint was filed within the period permitted by Inn Foods' waiver of the statute of limitations, we reverse. I The government filed suit against Inn Foods on December 14, 2001, alleging that Inn Foods deprived the government of duties on imported produce through the use of false importation documents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The government alleged that, from January 22, 1987, to January 19, 1990, the price of the produce declared by Inn Foods was less than Inn Foods and its importer, Seaveg, Ltd., actually paid for the produce. Und...
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...
|
|
|