|
California Lawyer Search - Listings for Kaminer Frances S the Law Offices of
Name: Kaminer Frances S the Law Offices of
Address: 2039 Shattuck Ave Berkeley, CA 94704
Phone Number: 510-849-4424
|
Specialties:
|
Appeals
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
DORIS DAY ANIMAL v VENEMAN ANN, U.S. DC Circuit Court of AppealsDORIS DAY ANIMAL v VENEMAN AN 1000 N United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued November 4, 2002 Decided January 14, 2003 No. 01-5351 Doris Day Animal League, et al., Appellees v. Ann M. Veneman, in her official capacity as Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, et al., Appellants Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (00cv01057) John S. Koppel, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, and Michael Jay Singer, Attorney, U. S. Department of Justice. Christine M. Cooper was on the brief for amicus curiae American Kennel Club, Inc., in support of appellants. Andrew C. Kimbrell, pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellees. Joseph Mendelson III was on the brief. Before: Randolph and Rogers, Circuit Judges, and Williams, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge Randolph. Randolph, Circuit Judge: Hundreds of thousands of dog breeders throughout the United States raise and sell puppies from their homes. The Animal Welfare Act requires certain animal "dealers" to be licensed and to submit to inspections. The Act, which is administered by the Department of Agricul- ture, exempts "retail pet stores" from these requirements. The Secretary defines "retail pet store" as "any outlet where only the following animals are sold or offered for sale, at retail for use as pets: Dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice, gophers, chinchilla, domestic ferrets, domestic farm animals, birds, and coldblooded spe- cies." 9 C.F.R. § 1.1. The effect of this regulation is to exempt breeders who sell dogs as pets from their residences. The issue is whether the regulation is valid. Doris Day Animal League, a membership organizat...
IN RE WILHELM ELSNER United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1000 03-1569 (Serial No. 09/664,247) IN RE WILHELM ELSNER Julie W. Meder, Webb Ziesenheim Logsdon Orkin & Hanson, P.C., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, argued for appellant. Russell D. Orkin for appellant. John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for appellee. With him on the brief were Stephen Walsh and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitors. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1585 (Serial No. 09/267,559) IN RE KEITH W. ZARY Kenneth S. Klarquist, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, argued for appellant. With him on the brief was Kevin M. Hayes. John M. Whealan, Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of Arlington, Virginia, argued for the Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. With him on the brief were Stephen Walsh and Linda Moncys Isacson, Associate Solicitors. Patrick H. Ballew, Stratton Ballew PLLC, of Yakima, Washington, for amicus curiae Northwest Nursery Improvement Institute, Inc. Of counsel was Rex B. Stratton, of Seattle, Washington. Appealed from: United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1569 (Serial No. 09/664,247) IN RE WILHELM ELSNER - 03-1585 (Serial No. 09/267,559) IN RE KEITH ZARY _ DECIDED: August 16, 2004 _ Before LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. LOURIE, Circuit Judge. Wilhelm Elsner appeals from the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("PTO") Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences affirming the rejection of claim 1 of United States plant patent application 09/664,247 as anticip...
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...
|
|
|