|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Winters Schroth & King
Name: Winters Schroth & King
Address: 177 Military E Benicia, CA 94510
Phone Number: 707-745-0130
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1 v CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS FILED United States Cour 1000 t of Appeals Tenth Circuit MAR 22 2001 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT RURAL WATER DISTRICT NO. 1, ELLSWORTH COUNTY, KANSAS, commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District, also known as Ellsworth County Rural Water District No. 1, Nos. 98_3337, 98_3340, Plaintiff_Appellant and Cross_ Appellee, 99_3075 & 99_3084 v. CITY OF WILSON, KANSAS, Defendant_Appellee and Cross_ Appellant. APPEAL FROM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS (D.C. No. CV_96_1297_WEB) Victor S. Nelson, of Victor S. Nelson, P.A., Wichita, Kansas, for the appellant. Allen G. Glendenning, of Watkins, Calcara, Rondeau, Friedeman, Bleeker, Glendenning & McVay, Chtd, Great Bend, Kansas, for the appellee. Before HENRY, BRISCOE, Circuit Judges, and ALLEY, District Judge.(1) (1) The Honorable Wayne E. Alley, United States District Judge for the Western District of Oklahoma, sitting by designation. HENRY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Rural Water District No. 1, Ellsworth County, Kansas (commonly known as Post Rock Rural Water District) brought this case alleging that defendant City of Wilson, Kansas, (the City) violated 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) by providing domestic water service to customers in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. Post Rock appeals the district court's refusal to grant a permanent injunction preventing the City from providing domestic water service in Post Rock's service area. Post Rock also appeals the district court's refusal to award all of its attorney fees and expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The City cross_appeals the district court's decision to grant a contingent injunction concerning the City's provision of water service in the Purma Addition. The City further appeals the district court's award of partial attorney fees to Post Rock under § 1988. We exe...
SUGAR CANE GROWERS v VENEMAN ANN M., U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsSUGAR CANE GROWERS 1000 v VENEMAN ANN M. United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 11, 2002 Decided May 10, 2002 No. 01-5335 Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, et al., Appellants v. Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellees Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (01cv01904) Raymond B. Ludwiszewski argued the cause for appel- lants. With him on the briefs were Peter E. Seley and Hassan A. Zavareei. David J. Ball, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, ar- gued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., United States Attorney, and R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant United States Attorney. William Bradford Reynolds and John F. Bruce were on the brief for amicus curiae United States Beet Sugar Associ- ation in support of appellees. Before: Tatel and Garland, Circuit Judges, and Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge Silberman. Silberman, Senior Circuit Judge: Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Florida, Florida Crystals Corporation, and Refined Sugars, Inc., appeal from the district court's grant of summary judgment holding that appellants lacked standing. The court dismissed their claims that the United States Department of Agriculture failed to comply with the Adminis- trative Procedure Act1 and the Food Security Act of 19852 in implementing a payment-in-kind program for the 2001 sugar crop by press release. We think appellants have demonstrat- ed standing and because the Department did not comply with the APA or the Food Security Act, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment and remand to that court to in turn remand to the Department. I. In the United States, sugar production, which the govern- ment support...
|
|
|