|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for McCray Vernon H Atty
Name: McCray Vernon H Atty
Address: 413 NE Everett St Camas, WA 98607
Phone Number: 360-834-6262
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate 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....
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
UNITED STATES et al. v. UNITED FOODS, INC. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the sixth circuit No. 00-276. Argued April 17, 2001-Decided June 25, 2001 The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act mandates that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertisements promoting mushroom sales. Respondent refused to pay the assessment, claiming that it violates the First Amendment. It filed a petition challenging the assessment with the Secretary of Agriculture, and the United States filed an enforcement action in the District Court. After the administrative appeal was denied, respondent sought review in the District Court, which consolidated the two cases. In granting the Government summary judgment, the court found dispositive the decision in Glickman v. Wileman Brothers & Elliott, Inc., 521 U. S. 457, that the First Amendment was not violated when agricultural marketing orders, as part of a larger regulatory marketing scheme, required producers of California tree fruit to pay assessments for product advertising. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that Glickman did not control because the mandated payments in this case were not part of a comprehensive statutory agricultural marketing program. Held: The assessment requirement violates the First Amendment. Pp. 2-11. (a) Even viewing the expression here as commercial speech, there is no basis under Glickman or this Court's other precedents to sustain the assessments. The First Amendment may prevent the government from, inter alia, compelling individuals to pay subsidies for speech to which they object. See Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209; Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1. Such precedents provide the beginning point for analysis here. Respondent wants to convey the message that its brand of mushrooms is superior to those grown by other producers, and it objects to being charged for a contrary message which seems to be f...
|
|
|