|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Barker Lynn Penix Atty
Name: Barker Lynn Penix Atty
Address: 801 2nd Ave Ste 1500 Seattle, WA 98104
Phone Number: 206-682-3840
|
Specialties:
|
Dui And Traffic Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Employment & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
ARRIAGA v FL PACIFIC FARMS, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of AppealsARRIAGA 1000 v FL PACIFIC FARMS [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-16402 _ D. C. Docket No. 99-01760-CV-T-30 JORGE E. ARRIAGA, ROSALIO HARO-SANCHEZ, MOISES OCHOA-ROSALES, RAYMUNDO VASQUEZ, LUCIO BARTOLO-HUERTA, OSCAR BRAVO-MOYA, INOCENIO GERONIMO-MAGANA, ADOLFO GREGORIO, SANTIAGO JARAMILLA-GOMEZ, ALFONSO LUNA-MARTINEZ, JORGE NIETO-JASSO, DANIEL MOLINA-GREGORIO, GILBERTO PEREZ-FLORES, JOSE LUIS SOLIS-CAMACHO, JUAN FRANCISCO BALDERAS-SEPULVEDA, FRANCISCO SEPULVEDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants versus FLORIDA PACIFIC FARMS, L.L.C., SLEEPY CREEK FARMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 11, 2002) Before DUBINA, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs-appellants are migrant farm workers from Mexico (the "Farmworkers") employed by the defendants-appellees Florida Pacific Farms, L.L.C. and Sleepy Creek Farms, Inc. (the "Growers") during the 1998-1999 strawberry and raspberry seasons. The Farmworkers sued the Growers, alleging a failure by the Growers to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m) & 206(a), and the terms of the work contracts. Specifically, the FLSA claim asserted that the Growers' failure to reimburse the Farmworkers' travel, visa, and recruitment costs at the end of the first workweek pushed their first week's wages below the minimum wage. The contract claim contended that the Growers violated the work contract by not reimbursing the Farmworkers for the cost of transportation to and from their home villages to the Mexican point of hire. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were based upon an agreed statement of undisputed facts. The district court granted the Growers' motion and de...
Schroeder v. Bush FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 1000 AUG 24 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EUGENE SCHRODER; EDWIN PETROWSKY; R. RUSSELL GRIDER; and WESLEY No. 00_1357 MYERS, Plaintiffs_Appellants, v. GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States; ANN M. VENEMAN, United States Secretary of Agriculture; PAUL H. O'NEILL, United States Secretary of the Treasury;(1) and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants_Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (D.C. No. 00_K_154) Walker Fowler Todd, Chagrin Falls, Ohio, for Plaintiffs_Appellants. Peter J. Krumholz, Assistant United States Attorney (Thomas L. Strickland, United States Attorney, with him on the brief), Denver, Colorado, for Defendants_ Appellees. Before EBEL, Circuit Judge, McWILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge, and BRIMMER,(2) District Judge. EBEL, Circuit Judge. Appellants are farmers or ranchers who live and work within the territorial boundaries of the Tenth Circuit and who seek declaratory and injunctive relief against the President of the United States, the United States Secretary of Agriculture, the United States Secretary of the Treasury, and the United States of America (collectively, "Appellees"). Appellants seek, in essence, an order requiring Appellees and their agents to maintain market conditions favorable to small farmers. The district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, writing, "The Complaint seeks to have this court determine political questions which are properly addressed [by] the elected branches of the government. This Court has no jurisdiction over the discretionary acts of either. Plaintiffs' remedies are at the polling place, not the courts." Schroder v. Clinton, No. 00_ CV_154_K (D. Colo. July 6, 2000) (hereinafter "D.Ct. Order"). We agree that Appellants ask us to consider nonjusticiable political questions and that (1) Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2), ...
|
|
|