|
Massachusetts Lawyer Search - Listings for Walker Jeffrey A Atty
Name: Walker Jeffrey A Atty
Address: 70C Baldpate Rd Boxford, MA 01921
Phone Number: 978-887-5050
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
PACHECO v. WHITING FARMS INC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit APR 30 2004 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT VERONICA PACHECO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 03-1170 WHITING FARMS, INC.; THOMAS WHITING, individually; and N. LYLE JOHNSTON, individually, Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO (D.C. No. 01-RB-851 (CBS)) Submitted on the briefs:(1) Patricia L. Medige, Colorado Legal Services, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sam D. Starritt and Michael C. Santo, Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Grand Junction, Colorado, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, BALDOCK, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. (1) After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument. BALDOCK, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Veronica Pacheco sued Defendants Whiting Farms Inc. and its controlling owners alleging they failed to pay her overtime wages and terminated her employment in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. 201-219. FLSA generally requires employers to pay their employees one and one-half times the employee's regular rate of pay (overtime) for each hour worked in excess of forty hours during any given week. 29 U.S.C. 207(a)(1). FLSA's overtime wage requirements do not apply, however, "with respect to . . . any employee employed in agriculture[.]" Id. 213(b)(12). FLSA also prohibits retaliation against an employee because she engaged in protected activity under the Act. Id. 215(a)(3). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding Defendants were not required to pay Plaintiff overtime wages under FLSA's "agricultural...
AHRENS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit AUG 19 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT ROSE MARY AHRENS, Administrator of the Estate of Lawrence P. Ahrens, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. No. 02-6284 FORD MOTOR COMPANY and NEW HOLLAND NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants - Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (D.C. No. 01-CV-398-HE) John Gehlhausen, Lamar, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellant. Joseph Walters (Amy T. Kranenburg with him on the brief) of McAfee & Taft, P.C., Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Defendants-Appellees. Before SEYMOUR, McKAY and LUCERO, Circuit Judges. McKAY, Circuit Judge. In this diversity action, Appellant Rose Mary Ahrens brought suit against Appellees Ford Motor Company and New Holland North America, Inc., for the wrongful death of her husband, Lawrence P. Ahrens. In her complaint, Appellant alleged strict liability for a design defect, failure to warn of defects, and inadequate post-sale warnings. The district court, after reviewing the pleadings, affidavits, and depositions of expert and lay witnesses and other discovery, determined that the undisputed facts established that the tractor was not defective or unreasonably dangerous beyond the expectations of the ordinary consumer. Therefore, the district court granted Appellees' motion for summary judgment, and Appellant has appealed. The facts, construed in favor of Appellant for purposes of reviewing a grant of summary judgment, indicate that on October 11, 2000, Mr. Ahrens was driving a Ford Model 5000D tractor on a country road near Welch, Oklahoma, pulling a folded rake. An unidentified motorist crashed into the rake from behind, throwing Mr. Ahrens from the tractor. The tractor ran over Mr. Ahrens, crushing and killing him. The tractor was manufactured on July 23, 1967. The tractor was never equipped with a rollover protection system (ROPS), which i...
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...
|
|
|