F.T.C. v. U.S. OIL & GAS CORP.

Nos. 83-5838, 84-5133 and 84-5166.

748 F.2d 1431 (1984)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Eagle Oil & Gas Corporation, The Stratford Company, Gurdon Wolfson, Martin Rotberg, Harold Cooperman, Irving Sand, Milt Sand, Mike Bennett a/k/a Felix Dunbar, Defendants-Appellants, J. Leonard Diamond, Richard S. Wolfson, Mark Simpson, Harvey Ganz, Defendants. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. U.S. OIL & GAS CORPORATION, Eagle Oil & Gas Corp., The Stratford Company, Defendants-Appellants, J. Leonard Diamond, Richard S. Wolfson, Mark Simpson, Harvey Ganz, Gurdon Wolfson, Martin Rotberg, Harold Cooperman, Irving Sand, Milt Sand, Mike Bennett a/k/a Felix Dunbar, Defendants. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES OIL AND GAS CORP., et al., Defendants, Gurdon Wolfson, Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

November 15, 1984.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Charles O. Farrar, Jr., Lyons & Farrar, P.A., Coral Gables, Fla., for Gurdon Wolfson.

Michael M. Eaton, Arent, Fox, Kintner, Plotkin & Kahn, Donald B. Mitchell, Jr., Washington, D.C., for U.S. Oil, Eagle Oil and Stratford.

Bruce A. Zimet, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for Rotberg and Cooperman.

Benedict P. Kuehne, Neil R. Sonnett, Miami, Fla., for Bennett.

A. Scott Miller, McMaster, Forman & Miller, P.A., Miami, Fla., for Rotberg.

Ernest J. Isenstadt, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for F.T.C. in all cases.

Bernard J. Phillips, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for F.T.C. in Nos. 84-5133 and 84-5166.

Marc Cooper, Miami, Fla., for F.T.C. in No. 84-5133.

C. Steven Baker, Howard Shapiro, John H. Carley, F.T.C., Washington, D.C., for F.T.C. in No. 84-5166.

Before FAY and VANCE, Circuit Judges, and MacMAHON, District Judge.


PER CURIAM:

Appellants appeal from orders dated October 26, 1983, January 7, 1984, and January 23, 1984 of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Hoeveler, J.), granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting certain deceptive acts, granting ancillary relief freezing assets and appointing a Receiver, and denying appellants' motion to vacate the preliminary injunction.

This case presents just one issue: whether the district court...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases