|
Wisconsin Lawyer Search - Listings for De La Mora Linda C Atty
Name: De La Mora Linda C Atty
Address: 15255 Watertown Plank Rd Stop 1 Elm Grove, WI 53122
Phone Number: 262-784-5415
|
Specialties:
|
Real Estate Law
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Employment & Labor Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
USA v HART IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-60304 _ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus RODALTON HART Defendant-Appellant. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (Jackson Division) _ June 12, 2002 Before KING, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and WIENER Circuit Judges. WIENER, Circuit Judge: Defendant-Appellant Rodalton Hart ("Rodalton") appeals his conviction by a jury for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1014 ("§ 1014") and 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(B) ("§ 201(b)(1)(B)"). We conclude that the United States's ("the government's") "summary" witness did far more than summarize previously-presented evidence, and that, when the summary witness's testimony and accompanying documentary evidence is redacted, the remaining evidence is insufficient to prove the government's case against Rodalton beyond a reasonable doubt. We therefore reverse Rodalton's conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand the case for a new trial. I. Facts and Proceedings Rodalton has been a resident and family farmer in Holmes County, Mississippi for most of his life. After his graduation from Jacksonville State University in 1972, he returned to Holmes County to help his father run the family farm. In addition to helping his father, Rodalton started his own farm, gradually expanding his operation from thirteen acres - cultivating row crops and raising cattle - to several thousand acres by the mid-1980s. His success in farming was among the factors that led Mike Espy, who was Secretary of Agriculture at the time, to appoint Rodalton as one of Espy's advisors. In 1993, Rodalton and his brothers, who were also involved in farming, formed five separate partnerships, hoping to run their farming operations more efficiently by sharing labor, land, and equipment, and thereby maximize their income. Among the partnerships were R & C Farms (Rodalton and his wife, Carmella), and C & ...
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...
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...
|
|
|