Skip to content


Cerminaro Vs. Urban Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtUS Supreme Court
Decided On
Case Number362 U.S. 457
AppellantCerminaro
RespondentUrban Redevelopment Auth. of Pittsburgh
Excerpt:
.....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. cleveland electric illuminating co. v. city of euclid, 362 u.s. 457 (1960) 362 u.s. 457 (1960) "> 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.....
Judgment:
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.


CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO. v. CITY OF EUCLID, <a href="/99908"> 362 U.S. 457 </a> (1960) 362 U.S. 457 (1960) "> 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




Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //