|
North Carolina Lawyer Search - Listings for Light C Orville Atty
Name: Light C Orville Atty
Address: 407 S Van Buren Rd Ste C Eden, NC 27288
Phone Number: 336-627-4566
|
Specialties:
|
Criminal Law Traffic Offenses
Workers Compensation, Employee Benefit & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
JAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of AppealsJAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JAMES ISLAND PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 00-1910 and ANDREW C. SMITH, treasurer of Charleston County, in his official capacity; TOWN OF FOLLY BEACH; PEGGY MOSELEY, auditor of Charleston County, in her official capacity; WILLIAM O. THOMAS, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3557-2-11) Argued: April 4, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Williams and Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: William B. Regan, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Trent Marrs Kernodle, KERNODLE, TAYLOR & ROOT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frances I. Cantwell, Carl W. Stent, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. _ OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The James Island Public Service District, which provides fire pro- tection services to rural areas in South Carolina, seeks protection under § 306(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (1994), against certain actions taken by the City of Charleston. The district court found the District entitled to this protection. We affirm. I. Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 1961 in part to provide insured loans to sparsely populated rural communities for a variety of otherwise unaffordable services and improvements. See S. Rep. No. 566 (1961), reprinted in 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2243, 2305-06. One por- tion of the Act, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Act (FmHA), but renam...
USCA6 Opinion 03a0319p.06 RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit Rule 206 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2003 FED App. 0319P (6th Cir.) File Name: 03a0319p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT _ H.C. MacClaren, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. No. 02-3006 On Appeal from an Order of the Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture. No. D-99-0012. Argued: June 11, 2003 Decided and Filed: September 4, 2003 Before: MOORE and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges; SCHWARZER, Senior District Judge.(*) _ COUNSEL ARGUED: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. ON BRIEF: Stephen P. McCarron, McCARRON & DIESS, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. _ OPINION _ JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Petitioner H.C. MacClaren, Inc. (MacClaren), a wholesale produce broker, appeals a final order of the Secretary of Agriculture revoking its license pursuant...
JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al. v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al. certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit No. 03-1164.Argued December 8, 2004-Decided May 23, 2005* The Beef Promotion and Research Act of 1985 (Beef Act) establishes a federal policy of promoting and marketing beef and beef products. The Secretary of Agriculture has implemented the Act through a Beef Promotion and Research Order (Order), which creates a Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and Research Board (Beef Board) and an Operating Committee, and imposes an assessment, or "checkoff," on all sales and importation of cattle. The assessment funds, among other things, beef promotional campaigns approved by the Operating Committee and the Secretary. Respondents, associations whose members pay the checkoff and individuals whose cattle are subject to the checkoff, challenged the program on First Amendment grounds, relying on United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U. S. 405, in which this Court invalidated a mandatory checkoff that funded mushroom advertising. The District Court found that the Beef Act and Order unconstitutionally compel respondents to subsidize speech to which they object. Affirming, the Eighth Circuit held that compelled funding of speech may violate the First Amendment even when it is the government's speech. Held: Because the beef checkoff funds the Government's own speech, it is not susceptible to a First Amendment compelled-subsidy challenge. Pp. 5-15. (a) This Court has sustained First Amendment challenges in "compelled-subsidy" cases, in which the government requires an individual to subsidize a private message he disagrees with. See Keller v. State Bar of Cal., 496 U. S. 1; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 431 U. S. 209. Keller and Abood led the Court to sustain a compelled-subsidy challenge to an assessment whose only purpose was to fund mushroom advertising. United Foods, supra, at 413, 415-416. However, the speech in United Foods...
|
|
|