|
Connecticut Lawyer Search - Listings for Aba Advanced Legal Services
Name: Aba Advanced Legal Services
Address: Hartford Glastonbury Hartford, CT 06101
Phone Number: 860-290-9090
|
Specialties:
|
Personal Injury & Property Damage Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT -* FRANCES BROADDUS CRUTCHFIELD; HENRY RUFFIN BROADDUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellant, and UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant.No. 02-1946 GREATER RICHMOND PARTNERSHIP, INCORPORATED; GREATER RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; HANOVER BUSINESS COUNCIL; LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER AGENCIES, INCORPORATED (VAMWA), Amici Supporting Appellant. -* -* FRANCES BROADDUS CRUTCHFIELD; HENRY RUFFIN BROADDUS, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant-Appellant, and COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Defendant.No. 02-2153 GREATER RICHMOND PARTNERSHIP, INCORPORATED; GREATER RICHMOND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE; HANOVER BUSINESS COUNCIL; LOCAL GOVERNMENT ATTORNEYS OF VIRGINIA, INCORPORATED; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF COUNTIES; VIRGINIA ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER AGENCIES, INCORPORATED (VAMWA), Amici Supporting Appellant. -* Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CA-02-253-3) Argued: January 24, 2003 Decided: March 27, 2003 Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and James H. MICHAEL, Jr., Senior United District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation. _ 2 Reversed by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote the opinion, in which Judge Michael and Senior Judge Michael joined. _ COUNSEL ARGUED: John Alan Bryson, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellant Corps; William Gray Broaddus, MCGUIREWOODS, L.L.P., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant County. William B. Ellis, ELLIS & THORP, P.L.L.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Thomas L. Sanso- netti, Assistant Attorney General, Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, M....
EXCEL CORPORATION v. UNITED STATES DEPT FILED United States Court of Appeals 1000 Tenth Circuit FEB 15 2005 PATRICK FISHER Clerk PUBLISH UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT EXCEL CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. No. 04-9540 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (Agency No. D-99-0010) John R. Fleder, of Hyman, Phelps & McNamara, P.C., Washington, D.C. (Timothy B. Mustaine and Jeff P. DeGraffenreid, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, Wichita, Kansas, and Philip C. Olsson and Brett T. Schwemer, of Olsson, Frank and Weeda, P.C., Washington, D.C., with him on the briefs), for Petitioner. Stephen M. Reilly, Senior Counsel (James Michael Kelly, Deputy General Counsel, and Margaret M. Breinholt, Assistant General Counsel, with him on the brief), Office of the General Counsel, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., for Respondent. Before BRISCOE, MURPHY, and O'BRIEN, Circuit Judges. BRISCOE, Circuit Judge. Petitioner Excel Corporation seeks review of a decision and order issued by respondent United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) finding that Excel violated 202(a) of the Packers and Stockyards Act (P&S Act), 7 U.S.C. 192(a), and an implementing regulation, 9 C.F.R. 201.99(a), by failing to disclose to hog producers a change in Excel's formula for computing the "lean weight" of hog carcasses. Excel also challenges the decision and order to the extent it directs Excel to cease and desist from engaging in certain related practices. Exercising jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2342(2), we grant Excel's petition for review for the sole purpose of modifying the cease and desist language of the decision and order. As so modified, the decision and order is enforced. I. Factual background Excel, a corporation based in Wichita, Kansas, is estimated to be the fourth or fifth largest hog slaughterer in the United States. ROA, Vol. V, Doc. 155 at 13, 82....
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 ...
|
|
|