|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Gagley David A Attorney Attorney at Law
Name: Gagley David A Attorney Attorney at Law
Address: Kent, WA 98031
Phone Number: 253-854-1244
|
Specialties:
|
Elder Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
HERSHEY FOODS CORP v AGRI, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsHERSHEY FOODS CORP v AGRI United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued April 18, 2002 Decided June 18, 2002 No. 01-5169 Hershey Foods Corporation, Appellant v. Department of Agriculture, Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (99cv02138) Andrew G. McBride argued the cause for appellant. With him on the briefs was Eve J. Klindera. Robert M. Reese entered an appearance. Douglas N. Letter, Litigation Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With him on the brief was Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney. Before: Sentelle, Randolph and Garland, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph. Randolph, Circuit Judge: Hershey Foods Corporation ap- peals the dismissal of its complaint seeking to vacate a portion of the Department of Agriculture's regulation estab- lishing pricing classifications of milk used in the manufacture of milk chocolate. The district court dismissed the complaint on the ground that legislation converted the regulation into a statute, not subject to judicial review under the Administra- tive Procedure Act. Although we disagree with the district court in this respect, we hold that dismissal was proper because Hershey failed to exhaust its administrative reme- dies. I. The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937 ("AMAA"), empowered the Secretary of Agriculture to regu- late the sale of milk by geographic region. See 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5). Over the years, the Secretary issued many milk marketing orders, applying to different geographic regions and classifying milk according to the "form in which or the purpose for which it is used." 7 U.S.C. § 608c(5)(A). By 1998, there were thirty-one milk marketing orders in effect. See Milk in the New England and Other Marketing Areas: Proposed Rule and Opportun...
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...
|
|
|