PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. CITY OF SEATTLE, 396 U.S. 803 (1969)

U.S. Supreme Court

PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. CITY OF SEATTLE , 396 U.S. 803 (1969)

396 U.S. 803

PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
v.
CITY OF SEATTLE.
No. 2.

CITY OF SEATTLE
v.
PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
No. 3.

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1969.

October Term, 1969.

October 13, 1969

Clarence C. Dill, William G. Ennis, and Bennett Boskey, for Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County.

A. L. Newbould and Richard S. White, for City of Seattle.

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States, amicus curiae.

The petitions for writs of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60.[ Public Utility Dist. v. City of Seattle 396 U.S. 803 (1969) ]


U.S. Supreme Court

PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. v. CITY OF SEATTLE , 396 U.S. 803 (1969)

396 U.S. 803

PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
v.
CITY OF SEATTLE.
No. 2.

CITY OF SEATTLE
v.
PUBLIC UTILITY DIST. NO. 1 OF PEND OREILLE COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
No. 3.

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1969.

October Term, 1969.

October 13, 1969

Clarence C. Dill, William G. Ennis, and Bennett Boskey, for Public Utility Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County.

A. L. Newbould and Richard S. White, for City of Seattle.

Solicitor General Griswold, for the United States, amicus curiae.

The petitions for writs of certiorari dismissed under Rule 60.[ Public Utility Dist. v. City of Seattle 396 U.S. 803 (1969) ]

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.

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.