Achievements
Attorney Stanley A. Zamel handled, or assisted in the handling of the following appellate court cases (some in State courts, some in Federal courts), and acted as Special Counsel to the City of Los Angeles, Department of Airports, in the asterisked cases, set forth below:
Arciero Ranches vs. Meza, 17 Cal.App.4th 114 (1993) (appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court, holding that the defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether or not they had a prescriptive easement on a farm road)
Jerry Gitmed v. General Motors Corporation, 26 Cal.App.4th 824 (1994) (appellate court reversed trial court's ruling dismissing lemon law complaint against General Motors on procedural grounds)
*City of Los Angeles Dept of Airports vs. US Dept. of Transportation, 103 F.3d 1037 (DC Cir 1997) (US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit held, among other things, that the Secretary of the US Department of Transportation erred in concluding that the FAA Authorization Act and the Anti-Head Tax Act prohibited the city from including in its landing fee a rental charge component reflecting the present fair market value of land underlying the airfield, instead requiring the use of historic cost).
*Air Transport Association of America vs. Department of Transportation (City of Los Angeles, Intervenor), 119 F.3d 38 (DC Cir 1997) (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated FAA policy drawing distinction between airfield and non-airfield fees on the grounds the FAA's policy was arbitrary and capricious)
*City of Los Angeles vs. US Department of Transportation, 165 F.3d 972 (DC Cir 1999) (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held it was not unreasonable for the DOT to preclude the recovery of opportunity costs on the ground that, if the city is deemed to incur opportunity costs, those costs are already covered by the existing benefits enjoyed by the city from the presence of the airport, and further held that DOT's action did not constitute an unconstitutional taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment)
Arciero Ranches vs. Meza, 17 Cal.App.4th 114 (1993) (appellate court reversed the ruling of the trial court, holding that the defendants were entitled to a jury trial on the issue of whether or not they had a prescriptive easement on a farm road)
Jerry Gitmed v. General Motors Corporation, 26 Cal.App.4th 824 (1994) (appellate court reversed trial court's ruling dismissing lemon law complaint against General Motors on procedural grounds)
*City of Los Angeles Dept of Airports vs. US Dept. of Transportation, 103 F.3d 1037 (DC Cir 1997) (US Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit held, among other things, that the Secretary of the US Department of Transportation erred in concluding that the FAA Authorization Act and the Anti-Head Tax Act prohibited the city from including in its landing fee a rental charge component reflecting the present fair market value of land underlying the airfield, instead requiring the use of historic cost).
*Air Transport Association of America vs. Department of Transportation (City of Los Angeles, Intervenor), 119 F.3d 38 (DC Cir 1997) (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated FAA policy drawing distinction between airfield and non-airfield fees on the grounds the FAA's policy was arbitrary and capricious)
*City of Los Angeles vs. US Department of Transportation, 165 F.3d 972 (DC Cir 1999) (US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held it was not unreasonable for the DOT to preclude the recovery of opportunity costs on the ground that, if the city is deemed to incur opportunity costs, those costs are already covered by the existing benefits enjoyed by the city from the presence of the airport, and further held that DOT's action did not constitute an unconstitutional taking within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment)