|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Weiss Michael H Law Offices
Name: Weiss Michael H Law Offices
Address: PO Box 9512 Berkeley, CA 94709
Phone Number: 510-841-7810
|
Specialties:
|
Contract & Construction Law
Bankruptcy Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -* EARL C. MCDANIELS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2086 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* RANDOLPH F. LOVETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2087 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* -* ALTON E. BROWN, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant, v.No. 01-2088 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. -* Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. C. Weston Houck, District Judge. (CA-00-1482-4-12, CA-00-2053-4-12, CA-00-2054-4-12) Argued: May 7, 2002 Decided: July 29, 2002 Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Niemeyer wrote the majority opinion, in which Chief Judge Wilkinson joined. Judge Luttig wrote a dissenting opinion. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Keith Moss Babcock, LEWIS, BABCOCK & HAW- KINS, L.L.P., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellants. John Berk- ley Grimball, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: James H. Renfrow, Jr., Dillon, South Carolina, for Appellants. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. _ OPINION NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge: The Secretary of Agriculture denied the applications of farmers Earl McDaniels, Randolph Lovett, and Alton Brown for livestock disaster relief because each farmer's 1997 gross revenue exceeded $2.5 million, making him ineligible for assistance under applicable Department of Agriculture regulations. In this action, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, the farmers challenge these regula- tions, contending that they are arbitrary and capricious because gross revenue is defined to include pass-through funds - in this case, sales of bailment tobacco - in which the farmers had no interest. The district court held that the applicable regulations were "reason- ab...
HARVEY v. VENEMAN USCA1 Opinion 04-1379 United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit _ No. 04-1379 ARTHUR HARVEY, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. ANN VENEMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Defendant, Appellee. _ APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE [Hon. D. Brock Hornby, U.S. District Judge] _ Before Boudin, Chief Judge, Selya, Circuit Judge, and Schwarzer, (1) Senior District Judge. _ Paula Dinerstein with whom Lobel, Novins & Lamont was on brief for appellant. Susan E. Stokes, Jill E. Krueger, Farmers' Legal Action Group, and Joseph Mendelson III, Center for Food Safety, on brief for Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA, Center for Food Safety, and Beyond Pesticides, Amici Curiae. James Handley, Handley Environmental Law, on brief for Organic Consumers Association, Sierra Club, Public Citizen, Inc., Northeast Organic Farming Association/Massachusetts Chapter, Inc., John Clark, Merrill Clark, Anne Mendenhall, Greenpeace USA, and Waterkeeper Alliance, Amici Curiae. Halsey B. Frank, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Paula D. Silsby, United States Attorney, was on the brief for appellee. _ January 26, 2005 _ SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge. Arthur Harvey appeals the District Court's grant of summary judgment to Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman on Harvey's claims alleging that multiple provisions of the National Organic Program Final Rule ("Final Rule" or "Rule"), 7 C.F.R. Pt. 205, are inconsistent with the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990, 7 U.S.C. §§ 6501-6523 ("OFPA" or "Act"). Harvey appeals on seven of the nine counts he originally brought. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment on the first, second, fifth, sixth, and eighth counts and reverse on the third and seventh counts, and we remand for entry of judgment in accordance with this opinion. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY I. OVERVIEW OF OFPA AND IMPLEMENTING REGULATIONS Congress enacted OFPA in 199...
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...
|
|
|