Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

Supreme Court

Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission

317 U.S. 588, 63 S. Ct. 39

Supreme Court of the United States·Decided October 12, 1942·No. No. 160; No. 169·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam:

In No. 160 the appeal is dismissed, and in No. 169 the petition for writ of [589]*589certiorari is denied, for want of a final judgment. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251; Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U. S. 575.

Mr. George Henry Huft for appellant in No. 160 and respondent in No. 169. Mr. Thomas A. Foulke for Benjamin H. Davis et al., appellees in No. 160. Messrs. Claude T. Reno, Harry M. Showalter, Samuel Graff Miller, and Herbert S. Levy for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

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

Per Curiam:

In No. 160 the appeal is dismissed, and in No. 169 the petition for writ of [589]*589certiorari is denied, for want of a final judgment. Grays Harbor Logging Co. v. Coats-Fordney Co., 243 U. S. 251; Wick v. Superior Court, 278 U. S. 575.

Mr. George Henry Huft for appellant in No. 160 and respondent in No. 169. Mr. Thomas A. Foulke for Benjamin H. Davis et al., appellees in No. 160. Messrs. Claude T. Reno, Harry M. Showalter, Samuel Graff Miller, and Herbert S. Levy for the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission.

Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 317 U.S. 588, 63 S. Ct. 39 (1942).

Pincite

317 U.S. 588 (Cheltenham & Abington Sewerage Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related