Ervin Hohensee v. State of Pennsylvania, Dept. Of Highways and United States of America

Third Circuit

Ervin Hohensee v. State of Pennsylvania, Dept. Of Highways and United States of America

383 F.2d 784

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedOctober 9, 1967

Docket16323

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 383 F.2d 784 (Ervin Hohensee v. State of Pennsylvania, Dept. Of Highways and United States of America) 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

Ervin Hohensee v. State of Pennsylvania, Dept. Of Highways and United States of America, 383 F.2d 784 (3d Cir. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant Hohensee seeks to recover a judgment for land taken under the “Federal-Aid Highway Acts”, 23 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. as appears. Assuming that jurisdiction existed in the court below, his claim must be denied under Martin v. Creasy, 360 U.S. 219, 224, 79 S.Ct. 1034, 1037, 3 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1959). In Creasy the Supreme Court stated: “It must be assumed that the courts of Pennsylvania meant what they said in stating that the plaintiffs will be afforded a procedure through which the full measure of their rights under the United States Constitution will be preserved. Assuming, however, that there was a basis to support intervention by a court of equity, the District Court, we think, should nevertheless have declined to adjudicate this controversy.” Hohensee has not invoked the aid of any State court insofar as the record shows.

The other issues raised by appellant need not be referred to. The judgment will be affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff-appellant Hohensee seeks to recover a judgment for land taken under the “Federal-Aid Highway Acts”, 23 U.S.C.A. § 101 et seq. as appears. Assuming that jurisdiction existed in the court below, his claim must be denied under Martin v. Creasy, 360 U.S. 219, 224, 79 S.Ct. 1034, 1037, 3 L.Ed.2d 1186 (1959). In Creasy the Supreme Court stated: “It must be assumed that the courts of Pennsylvania meant what they said in stating that the plaintiffs will be afforded a procedure through which the full measure of their rights under the United States Constitution will be preserved. Assuming, however, that there was a basis to support intervention by a court of equity, the District Court, we think, should nevertheless have declined to adjudicate this controversy.” Hohensee has not invoked the aid of any State court insofar as the record shows.

The other issues raised by appellant need not be referred to. The judgment will be affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

383 F.2d 784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ervin-hohensee-v-state-of-pennsylvania-dept-of-highways-and-united-ca3-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack