|
Washington Lawyer Search - Listings for Albert Douglas F Atty
Name: Albert Douglas F Atty
Address: 202 S 348th St Federal Way, WA 98003
Phone Number: 253-927-3232
|
Specialties:
|
Wills, Estates, Trusts & Probate Law
Adoption, Divorce & Family Law
Criminal Trial
|
|
|
|
Cases related to this attorney's specialties:
U.S. v. INN FOODS, INC. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 1000 ; 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. Michael S. Dufault, Trial Attorney, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General; David M. Cohen, Director; and Patricia M. McCarthy, Assistant Director. Robert Scott Whiteley, Horton, Whiteley & Cooper, of Oakland, California, argued for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief was Craig A. Mitchell, of Newport Beach, California. Appealed from: United States Court of International Trade Senior Judge Nicholas Tsoucalas United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 04-1035 UNITED STATES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. INN FOODS, INC., Defendant-Appellee. _ DECIDED: September 13, 2004 _ Before NEWMAN, RADER, and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. BRYSON, Circuit Judge. The government appeals the decision of the Court of International Trade dismissing the government's complaint against Inn Foods, Inc., as time-barred. United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 264 F. Supp. 2d 1333 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003); United States v. Inn Foods, Inc., 276 F. Supp. 2d 1359 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003) (denying motion for reconsideration). Because we conclude that the complaint was filed within the period permitted by Inn Foods' waiver of the statute of limitations, we reverse. I The government filed suit against Inn Foods on December 14, 2001, alleging that Inn Foods deprived the government of duties on imported produce through the use of false importation documents, in violation of 19 U.S.C. § 1592. The government alleged that, from January 22, 1987, to January 19, 1990, the price of the produce declared by Inn Foods was less than Inn Foods and its importer, Seaveg, Ltd., actually paid for the produce. Und...
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....
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 ...
|
|
|