CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH. OF PITTSBURGH, 362 U.S. 457 (1960)
U.S. Supreme Court
CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH. OF PITTSBURGH, 362 U.S. 457 (1960) 362 U.S. 457 CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 654, Misc.
Decided April 25, 1960.
Appeal dismissed.
Reported below: ___ F. Supp. ___.
Louis C. Glasso for appellant.
Theodore L. Hazlett, Jr. and David Stahl for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed.
U.S. Supreme Court
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, 362 U.S. 457 (1960) 362 U.S. 457 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 740.
Decided April 25, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 170 Ohio St. 45, 162 N.E.2d 125.
John Lansdale for appellant.
Paul H. Torbet and John F. Ray, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
U.S. Supreme Court
CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTH. OF PITTSBURGH, 362 U.S. 457 (1960) 362 U.S. 457 CERMINARO v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA. No. 654, Misc.
Decided April 25, 1960.
Appeal dismissed.
Reported below: ___ F. Supp. ___.
Louis C. Glasso for appellant.
Theodore L. Hazlett, Jr. and David Stahl for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The appeal is dismissed.
U.S. Supreme Court
CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, 362 U.S. 457 (1960) 362 U.S. 457 CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, OHIO, ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO.
No. 740.
Decided April 25, 1960.
Appeal dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Reported below: 170 Ohio St. 45, 162 N.E.2d 125.
John Lansdale for appellant.
Paul H. Torbet and John F. Ray, Jr. for appellees.
PER CURIAM.
The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.
Page 362 U.S. 457, 458
Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.
