|
Alaska Lawyer Search - Listings for Weed W David Atty
Name: Weed W David Atty
Address: 1227 W 9th Ave Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone Number: 907-276-6420
|
Specialties:
|
Accidents
Maritime & Admiralty Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
RODRIGUEZ v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 10 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ELADIO RODRIGUEZ, individually; MARTIN GOMEZ, individually, Plaintiffs - Appellants, No. 02-1483 vs. WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually, Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 99-RB-2490 (CBS)) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiffs - Appellants. Sam D. Starritt (and Michael C. Santo, on the brief), Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, L.L.P., Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants - Appellees. Before KELLY, HARTZ, Circuit Judges and CASSELL(1), District Judge. KELLY, Circuit Judge. (1) The Honorable Paul G. Cassell, United States District Judge for the District of Utah, sitting by designation. Plaintiffs-Appellants Eladio Rodriguez and Martin Gomez brought this suit against their former employer, Thomas Whiting and Whiting Farms, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Whiting Farms"), claiming Whiting Farms failed to pay them overtime as required under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA" or the "Act"). Whiting Farms argues it is exempt from paying Rodriguez and Gomez overtime under the FLSA agricultural exemption, which provides an exemption to the overtime wage requirements for "any employee employed in agriculture." 29 U.S.C. 213(b)(12). Rodriguez and Gomez filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of whether they performed nonagricultural jobs and thus were entitled to overtime pay under the FLSA. Whiting Farms also moved for summary judgment on all issues. The district court determined Rodriguez and Gomez were engaged in agricultural work and therefore were not entitled to overtime under the agricultural exemption. The district court granted Whiting Farms's motion for summary judgment and awarded costs to Whiting Farms. We have jurisdi...
JAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of AppealsJAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JAMES ISLAND PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 00-1910 and ANDREW C. SMITH, treasurer of Charleston County, in his official capacity; TOWN OF FOLLY BEACH; PEGGY MOSELEY, auditor of Charleston County, in her official capacity; WILLIAM O. THOMAS, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3557-2-11) Argued: April 4, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Williams and Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: William B. Regan, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Trent Marrs Kernodle, KERNODLE, TAYLOR & ROOT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frances I. Cantwell, Carl W. Stent, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. _ OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The James Island Public Service District, which provides fire pro- tection services to rural areas in South Carolina, seeks protection under § 306(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (1994), against certain actions taken by the City of Charleston. The district court found the District entitled to this protection. We affirm. I. Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 1961 in part to provide insured loans to sparsely populated rural communities for a variety of otherwise unaffordable services and improvements. See S. Rep. No. 566 (1961), reprinted in 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2243, 2305-06. One por- tion of the Act, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Act (FmHA), but renam...
|
|
|