Home/Fifth Circuit/Peter Aris v. Big Ten Taxi Corporation, Employers Service Corporation and Florida Industrial Commission, No. 31149 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

Peter Aris v. Big Ten Taxi Corporation, Employers Service Corporation and Florida Industrial Commission, No. 31149 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I

441 F.2d 536
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedMay 4, 1971
Docket536
StatusPublished

This text of 441 F.2d 536 (Peter Aris v. Big Ten Taxi Corporation, Employers Service Corporation and Florida Industrial Commission, No. 31149 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Peter Aris v. Big Ten Taxi Corporation, Employers Service Corporation and Florida Industrial Commission, No. 31149 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5th Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5th Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I, 441 F.2d 536 (5th Cir. 1971).

Opinion

441 F.2d 536

Peter ARIS, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BIG TEN TAXI CORPORATION, Employers Service Corporation and
Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 31149 Summary Calendar.*
*Rule 18, 5th Cir.; see Isbell Enterprises, Inc
v.
Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5th Cir. 1970, 431
F.2d 409, Part I.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 4, 1971.

Peter Aris, pro se.

G. A. Haddad, Miami, Fla., Patrick H. Mears, Gen. Counsel, Tallahassee, Fla., James R. Parks, Samuel O. Hoffman of Preddy, Haddad, Kutner Hardy, P.A., Miami, Fla., for respondents-appellees.

Before WISDOM, COLEMAN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges. SIMPSON, Circuit judges.

Peter Aris has appealed from the district court's dismissal of his petition for review of an order of the Florida Supreme Court denying certiorari. The district court correctly held that it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit. See 28 U.S.C. 1331 et seq., 1257(3); Iacaponi v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, W.D.Pa.1966, 258 F.Supp. 880, 884, affirmed 379 F.2d 311, cert. denied ,1968, 389 U.S. 1054, 88 S.Ct. 802, 19 L.Ed.2d 849. The order appealed from is due to be and is hereby affirmed.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Dino Iacaponi v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company, a Corporation
379 F.2d 311 (Third Circuit, 1967)
Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, Defendant-Third Party v. Marine Mart, Inc., Third Party
431 F.2d 409 (Third Circuit, 1970)
Iacaponi v. New Amsterdam Casualty Company
258 F. Supp. 880 (W.D. Pennsylvania, 1966)
Aris v. Big Ten Taxi Corp.
441 F.2d 536 (Fifth Circuit, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
441 F.2d 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-aris-v-big-ten-taxi-corporation-employers-service-corporation-and-ca5-1971.