|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Mahaney Mary H Atty
Name: Mahaney Mary H Atty
Address: 1340 E Hunter Pl Moses Lake, WA 98837
Phone Number: 509-765-9562
|
Specialties:
|
General Practice
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
GORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of AppealsGORMAN-BAKOS v CORNELL COOPERATIVE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Second Circuit _ Spring Term, 2001 (Argued: March 14, 2001 Decided: June 04, 2001) Docket No. 00-9012, 00-9104 _ Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, -v.- Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Angela Warner, individually and as agent, servant and employee of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Mike Pierotti, individually and as President of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Dorothy Foster, Bob Lindsay, Tim Manning, Marion Pierce, Jo Ann Rafilik, Steve Ras, Linda Rohmer, Sharon Sutton and Grace Underwood, individually and as directors of Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants. _ Before: Sotomayor, Katzmann, Circuit Judges, and Chin, District Judge.* _ Plaintiffs-Appellants appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., Chief Judge), granting defendants' motion for summary judgment because plaintiffs failed to offer sufficient proof of a causal connection between their allegedly constitutionally protected speech and their dismissal from defendants' 4-H program. Defendants-Cross-Appellants appeal the denial of their request for attorney's fees. The appeal is granted, and the judgment is vacated and remanded; the cross- appeal is denied as moot. _ L. John Van Norden, Schenectady, New York, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Lynn Gorman-Bakos and Rodney Bakos, Jeffrey T. Culkin, Gordon, Siegel, Mastro, Mullaney, Gordon & Galvin, P.C., Latham, New York, for Defendants-Appellees Cornell Cooperative Extension of Schenectady County, Ellen Elliott, individually and as Executive Director of Corne...
IN RE:STEVE ROBINSON v. USCA6 Opinion 01b0007p.06 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2001 FED App. 0007P (6th Cir.) File Name: 01b0007p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: STEVE D. ROBINSON, Debtor. STEVE D. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. No. 00-8088 CHAMPAIGN LANDMARK, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, at Columbus. No. 99-57410. Argued: June 13, 2001 Decided and Filed: August 21, 2001 Before: BROWN, MORGENSTERN-CLARREN, and RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. OPINION WILLIAM HOUSTON BROWN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. The Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order overruling his objection to the claim of Champaign Landmark, Inc. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erred when it decided that there were no grounds warranting revocation of the arbitration award and whether the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that res judicata barred the Debtor's objection to Landmark's claim. As a part of these issues, there is a question of whether the bankruptcy court erred by denying the Debtor an opportunity to present evidence in support of his legal arguments. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over final orders of the bankruptcy courts of the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) and (c). The bankruptcy court's order disposing of Landmark's claim is a final appealable order, because it "'ends the litigation on the me...
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...
|
|
|