|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Thorsnes Michael T Atty
Name: Thorsnes Michael T Atty
Address: 2550 5th Ave San Diego, CA 92103
Phone Number: 619-236-9363
|
Specialties:
|
Condemnation Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
DORIS DAY ANIMAL v VENEMAN ANN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsDORIS DAY ANIMAL v VENEMAN AN 1000 N United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 4, 2002 Decided January 14, 2003 No. 01-5351 Doris Day Animal League, et al., Appellees v. Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (00cv01057) John S. Koppel, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Michael Jay Singer, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice. Christine M. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club, Inc., in support of appellants. Andrew C. Kimbrell, pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellees. Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. Before: Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph. Randolph, Circuit Judge: Hundreds of thousands of dog breeders throughout the United States raise and sell puppies from their homes. The Animal Welfare Act requires certain animal "dealers" to be licensed and to submit to inspections. The Act, which is administered by the Department of Agricul- ture, exempts "retail pet stores" from these requirements. The Secretary defines "retail pet store" as "any outlet where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded spe- cies." 9 C.F.R. § 1.1. The effect of this regulation is to exempt breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences. The issue is whether the regulation is valid. Doris Day Animal League, a membership organizat...
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...
|
|
|