|
New Mexico Lawyer Search - Listings for Armstrong & Armstrong Attorneys & Cou
Name: Armstrong & Armstrong Attorneys & Cou
Address: 1213 Gusdorf Rd Taos, NM 87571
Phone Number: 505-751-4818
|
Specialties:
|
Mediation Law
Business Corporation & Partnership Law
|
|
|
|
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...
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...
ARRIAGA v FL PACIFIC FARMS, U.S. 11th Circuit Court of AppealsARRIAGA 1000 v FL PACIFIC FARMS [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT _ No. 01-16402 _ D. C. Docket No. 99-01760-CV-T-30 JORGE E. ARRIAGA, ROSALIO HARO-SANCHEZ, MOISES OCHOA-ROSALES, RAYMUNDO VASQUEZ, LUCIO BARTOLO-HUERTA, OSCAR BRAVO-MOYA, INOCENIO GERONIMO-MAGANA, ADOLFO GREGORIO, SANTIAGO JARAMILLA-GOMEZ, ALFONSO LUNA-MARTINEZ, JORGE NIETO-JASSO, DANIEL MOLINA-GREGORIO, GILBERTO PEREZ-FLORES, JOSE LUIS SOLIS-CAMACHO, JUAN FRANCISCO BALDERAS-SEPULVEDA, FRANCISCO SEPULVEDA, Plaintiffs-Appellants versus FLORIDA PACIFIC FARMS, L.L.C., SLEEPY CREEK FARMS, INC., Defendants-Appellees. _ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida _ (September 11, 2002) Before DUBINA, BARKETT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges. KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: The plaintiffs-appellants are migrant farm workers from Mexico (the "Farmworkers") employed by the defendants-appellees Florida Pacific Farms, L.L.C. and Sleepy Creek Farms, Inc. (the "Growers") during the 1998-1999 strawberry and raspberry seasons. The Farmworkers sued the Growers, alleging a failure by the Growers to comply with the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C. §§ 203(m) & 206(a), and the terms of the work contracts. Specifically, the FLSA claim asserted that the Growers' failure to reimburse the Farmworkers' travel, visa, and recruitment costs at the end of the first workweek pushed their first week's wages below the minimum wage. The contract claim contended that the Growers violated the work contract by not reimbursing the Farmworkers for the cost of transportation to and from their home villages to the Mexican point of hire. The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which were based upon an agreed statement of undisputed facts. The district court granted the Growers' motion and de...
|
|
|