|
Florida Lawyer Search - Listings for Isicoff Eric D Atty
Name: Isicoff Eric D Atty
Address: 1101 Brickell Ave Miami, FL 33131
Phone Number: 305-373-3232
|
Specialties:
|
Commercial & Banking Law
Patent Trademark & Copyright Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
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...
JAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON, U.S. 4th Circuit Court of AppealsJAMES ISLAND v CITY OF CHARLESTON PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT JAMES ISLAND PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 00-1910 and ANDREW C. SMITH, treasurer of Charleston County, in his official capacity; TOWN OF FOLLY BEACH; PEGGY MOSELEY, auditor of Charleston County, in her official capacity; WILLIAM O. THOMAS, JR., Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Falcon B. Hawkins, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3557-2-11) Argued: April 4, 2001 Decided: May 7, 2001 Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. _ Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Motz wrote the opinion, in which Judge Williams and Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: William B. Regan, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Trent Marrs Kernodle, KERNODLE, TAYLOR & ROOT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Frances I. Cantwell, Carl W. Stent, REGAN, CANTWELL & STENT, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. _ OPINION DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judge: The James Island Public Service District, which provides fire pro- tection services to rural areas in South Carolina, seeks protection under § 306(D) of the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act, 7 U.S.C. § 1926(b) (1994), against certain actions taken by the City of Charleston. The district court found the District entitled to this protection. We affirm. I. Congress enacted the Agricultural Act of 1961 in part to provide insured loans to sparsely populated rural communities for a variety of otherwise unaffordable services and improvements. See S. Rep. No. 566 (1961), reprinted in 1961 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2243, 2305-06. One por- tion of the Act, formerly known as the Farmers Home Administration Act (FmHA), but renam...
FINER FOODS INC v. AGRI In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 01-4024 Finer Foods, Inc., Petitioner, v. United States Department of Agriculture, Respondent. Petition for Review of an Order of the Department of Agriculture Under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act Submitted December 7, 2001-Decided December 11, 2001 Before Bauer, Easterbrook, and Williams, Circuit Judges. Easterbrook, Circuit Judge. Finer Foods, Inc., seeks a stay pending judicial review of an administrative order suspending its license to operate as a dealer under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act, 7 U.S.C. sec.sec. 499a- 499s. The Department of Agriculture offers two jurisdictional defenses. First, it contends, the court lacks personal juris diction over the Department because the petition for review was forwarded to federal officials in Washington, D.C., by fax rather than by mail, as the Hobbs Act requires. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2344. Second, it asserts, the court lacks subject- matter jurisdiction because there is no "final" administrative order. See 28 U.S.C. sec.2342(2). Both of these contentions are frivolous. We are surprised and disappointed that they have been advanced by counsel for the federal government. (We add for the sake of completeness that all three lawyers whose names appear on the papers work for the Department of Agriculture; the Department of Justice apparently has allowed the agency to represent itself.) Once a private party files a petition for review, this court's Clerk must serve the federal agency by registered mail (return receipt requested). In light of the disruptions to the postal system caused by terrorist activity in recent months, the Clerk has begun to forward papers by fax in addition to mail. Naturally the fax copy arrives first, for it is not delayed by any security screening procedures. Why should this step deprive the court of personal jurisdiction over the Department? In this case, notice was sent by mail ...
|
|
|