|
Oklahoma Lawyer Search - Listings for Neal Charles D Jr Atty
Name: Neal Charles D Jr Atty
Address: 100 E Carl Albert Pkwy McAlester, OK 74501
Phone Number: 918-423-4611
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
MONSANTO COMPANY v. MCFARLING United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1177, -1228 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOMAN MCFARLING, Defendant-Appellant. Seth P. Waxman, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also on the brief was Joseph C. Orlet, Husch & Eppenberger, LLC, of St. Louis, Missouri. Jim Waide, Waide & Associates, P.A., of Tupelo, Mississippi, argued for defendant-appellant. Appealed from: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Judge Catherine D. Perry United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1177, -1228 MONSANTO COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. HOMAN MCFARLING, Defendant-Appellant. _ DECIDED: April 9, 2004 _ Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge, PLAGER, Senior Circuit Judge, and CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. CLEVENGER, Circuit Judge. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri entered summary judgment against defendant Homan McFarling and in favor of the Monsanto Company ("Monsanto") under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) on some, but not all, of the claims being litigated. See Monsanto Co. v. McFarling, No. 4:00CV84 CDP (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting final judgment under Rule 54(b)); (E.D. Mo. Nov. 15, 2002) (granting Monsanto's motions for summary judgment). The district court held that, when McFarling replanted some of Monsanto's patented ROUNDUP READYŽ soybeans that he had saved from his prior year's crop, McFarling breached the Technology Agreement that he had signed as a condition of his purchase of the patented seeds. The district court also held that McFarling had failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that prevented entry of summary judgment on any of his counterclaims or his defenses to Monsanto's breach-of-contract claim. Finally, the district court held that a liquidated damages provisio...
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...
|
|
|