Catanzaro v. International Telephone & Telegraph

Third Circuit

Catanzaro v. International Telephone & Telegraph

575 F.2d 1085, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedMay 1, 1978

DocketNos. 77-1844, 77-1878

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 575 F.2d 1085 (Catanzaro v. International Telephone & Telegraph) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Catanzaro v. International Telephone & Telegraph, 575 F.2d 1085, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10 (3d Cir. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these cases, we have:

1) reviewed the records of the proceedings below;

2) reviewed the briefs and appendices of the parties filed in this court;

3) carefully examined the opinions of Judge Stapleton, dated October 29, 1976 (423 F.Supp. 415 (D.Del.1976)) and April 26, 1977 (unpublished), together with the letter forwarded by Anthony Catanzaro to Judge Stapleton under date of November 27, 1976, in which Mr. Catanzaro refused to participate in any district court proceedings; waived objection to dismissal of his actions; and stated that thereafter he and not the district court judge would “cal[l] ‘all the shots’ ” and “dic-tat[e] the terms [of the litigation].”

4) heard oral arguments by the parties in both appeals;

5) reviewed supplemental papers submitted by appellant, purporting to act in a pro se capacity, including:

a) letter dated April 1, 1978;

b) statement, dated April 4, 1978, entitled

“JUSTICE”

(meaningful term to some) (mythical term to others)

YOU BE THE JUDGE;

c) motion to file supplemental brief

and grounds in support, dated April 5,

1978;

d) letter dated April 6, 1978.

The record of each of the proceedings below amply demonstrates that the contentions which were raised there and repeated here by the appellant are without merit. Accordingly, we approve Judge Stapleton's well-reasoned opinions insofar as they apply to these appeals. We do not, however, speak to any aspect of the judgments of the district court or the opinions on which they are based which do not pertain to the parties or the issues in these appeals. In a related proceeding in which Masco Corp. is the appellant at 77-1845, we have entered a separate summary order which affirms the judgment of the district court in that proceeding.

The judgments of the district court at 77-1844 and 77-1878 will be affirmed.

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

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

In these cases, we have:

1) reviewed the records of the proceedings below;

2) reviewed the briefs and appendices of the parties filed in this court;

3) carefully examined the opinions of Judge Stapleton, dated October 29, 1976 (423 F.Supp. 415 (D.Del.1976)) and April 26, 1977 (unpublished), together with the letter forwarded by Anthony Catanzaro to Judge Stapleton under date of November 27, 1976, in which Mr. Catanzaro refused to participate in any district court proceedings; waived objection to dismissal of his actions; and stated that thereafter he and not the district court judge would “cal[l] ‘all the shots’ ” and “dic-tat[e] the terms [of the litigation].”

4) heard oral arguments by the parties in both appeals;

5) reviewed supplemental papers submitted by appellant, purporting to act in a pro se capacity, including:

a) letter dated April 1, 1978;

b) statement, dated April 4, 1978, entitled

“JUSTICE”

(meaningful term to some) (mythical term to others)

YOU BE THE JUDGE;

c) motion to file supplemental brief

and grounds in support, dated April 5,

1978;

d) letter dated April 6, 1978.

The record of each of the proceedings below amply demonstrates that the contentions which were raised there and repeated here by the appellant are without merit. Accordingly, we approve Judge Stapleton's well-reasoned opinions insofar as they apply to these appeals. We do not, however, speak to any aspect of the judgments of the district court or the opinions on which they are based which do not pertain to the parties or the issues in these appeals. In a related proceeding in which Masco Corp. is the appellant at 77-1845, we have entered a separate summary order which affirms the judgment of the district court in that proceeding.

The judgments of the district court at 77-1844 and 77-1878 will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

575 F.2d 1085, 200 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 10, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catanzaro-v-international-telephone-telegraph-ca3-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack