|
Utah Lawyer Search - Listings for Draper Tad D Atty
Name: Draper Tad D Atty
Address: 765 E 9000 S Sandy, UT 84094
Phone Number: 801-562-3200
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Insurance Law & Coverage
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
BELL v. FUR BREEDERS AGRIC. FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit NOV 7 2003 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT JOHN M. BELL, a/k/a Jack Bell; JOHN ROBERT BELL, a/k/a Bob Bell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, No. 01-4252 v. FUR BREEDERS AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE, a cooperative organized under the laws of Utah; DANE DIXON, JACK MARCHANT, STAN PETERSON, STAN STUART, KENT VERNON, and RICK WESTWOOD, former directors/members of Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Utah (D.C. No. 96-CV-939-ST) Roy B. Moore (Tiani Xochitl Coleman, Salt Lake City, Utah, with him on the briefs) of Roy B. Moore P.C. & Associates, Midvale, Utah, for Plaintiffs- Appellants. Perrin R. Love (Wendy B. Crowther of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson; and R. Scott Rawlings with him on the brief) of Clyde, Snow, Sessions & Swenson, Salt Lake City, Utah, for Defendants-Appellees. Before HARTZ and McKAY, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. BRORBY, Senior Circuit Judge. This appeal arises from an action brought by John M. (Jack) Bell and John Robert (Bob) Bell against Fur Breeders Agricultural Cooperative and its former directors and members of the board of directors. The Bells allege that while they were members of the cooperative, Fur Breeders committed antitrust violations pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Sherman Act), 15 U.S.C. 1, and Section 2(a) of the Clayton Act, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. 13(a). The Bells contend Fur Breeders violated antitrust laws because the discounted price it charged the Bells for feed they hauled themselves did not cover their actual costs, thereby limiting their ability to remain competitive with other cooperative members who ranched within the cooperative's delivery route and paid a different price for delivered feed. The Bells appeal the district court's order granting...
IN RE:STEVE ROBINSON v. USCA6 Opinion 01b0007p.06 ELECTRONIC CITATION: 2001 FED App. 0007P (6th Cir.) File Name: 01b0007p.06 BANKRUPTCY APPELLATE PANEL OF THE SIXTH CIRCUIT In re: STEVE D. ROBINSON, Debtor. STEVE D. ROBINSON, Appellant, v. No. 00-8088 CHAMPAIGN LANDMARK, INC., Appellee. Appeal from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, at Columbus. No. 99-57410. Argued: June 13, 2001 Decided and Filed: August 21, 2001 Before: BROWN, MORGENSTERN-CLARREN, and RHODES, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judges. COUNSEL ARGUED: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Grady L. Pettigrew, Jr., COX, STEIN & PETTIGREW, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Ray A. Cox, COX & GINGER, Dayton, Ohio, for Appellee. OPINION WILLIAM HOUSTON BROWN, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Judge. The Debtor appeals the bankruptcy court's order overruling his objection to the claim of Champaign Landmark, Inc. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the decision of the bankruptcy court. I. ISSUES ON APPEAL The issues on appeal are whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion or erred when it decided that there were no grounds warranting revocation of the arbitration award and whether the bankruptcy court erred when it ruled that res judicata barred the Debtor's objection to Landmark's claim. As a part of these issues, there is a question of whether the bankruptcy court erred by denying the Debtor an opportunity to present evidence in support of his legal arguments. II. JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Sixth Circuit has jurisdiction over final orders of the bankruptcy courts of the Southern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 158(a) and (c). The bankruptcy court's order disposing of Landmark's claim is a final appealable order, because it "'ends the litigation on the me...
|
|
|