McGarrity v. Delaware River Bridge Commission

Supreme Court

McGarrity v. Delaware River Bridge Commission

292 U.S. 19, 54 S. Ct. 565, 78 L. Ed. 1095, 1934 U.S. LEXIS 693

CourtSupreme Court of the United States

DecidedApril 2, 1934

Docket635

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 U.S. 19 (McGarrity v. Delaware River Bridge Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McGarrity v. Delaware River Bridge Commission, 292 U.S. 19, 54 S. Ct. 565, 78 L. Ed. 1095, 1934 U.S. LEXIS 693 (1934).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by a change in the grade of a street which prevented access to appellant’s leasehold. The au *20 thority of the State Commission which directed the change of grade was conferred by the state statute of July 9, 1919, P.L. 814. The state court held that the damage in question was merely consequential, that the allowance of recovery therefor was a matter of legislative grace and not of right, and that the statute as invoked by appellant was invalid as it did not conform to the requirements of the state constitution. 311 Pa. 436; 166 Atl. 895. No federal question was raised prior to a petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of the State, which was denied without more. Appellant insists that questions under the Fourteenth Amendment were thus raised at the first opportunity. The petition for rehearing does not appear in the record. Nor does the record contain the pleadings, the evidence, or any findings by the state court upon the questions of fact involved. Appellant relies upon statements in the opinion of the state court but these fail to support appellant’s contentions.

The appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 360, 362, 363; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193, 199, 200; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 641-643; Wabash R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88, 101.

Dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused by a change in the grade of a street which prevented access to appellant’s leasehold. The au *20 thority of the State Commission which directed the change of grade was conferred by the state statute of July 9, 1919, P.L. 814. The state court held that the damage in question was merely consequential, that the allowance of recovery therefor was a matter of legislative grace and not of right, and that the statute as invoked by appellant was invalid as it did not conform to the requirements of the state constitution. 311 Pa. 436; 166 Atl. 895. No federal question was raised prior to a petition for rehearing in the Supreme Court of the State, which was denied without more. Appellant insists that questions under the Fourteenth Amendment were thus raised at the first opportunity. The petition for rehearing does not appear in the record. Nor does the record contain the pleadings, the evidence, or any findings by the state court upon the questions of fact involved. Appellant relies upon statements in the opinion of the state court but these fail to support appellant’s contentions.

The appeal is dismissed for the want of a properly presented substantial federal question. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 360, 362, 363; Dewey v. Des Moines, 173 U.S. 193, 199, 200; Transportation Co. v. Chicago, 99 U.S. 635, 641-643; Wabash R. Co. v. Defiance, 167 U.S. 88, 101.

Dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 U.S. 19, 54 S. Ct. 565, 78 L. Ed. 1095, 1934 U.S. LEXIS 693, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcgarrity-v-delaware-river-bridge-commission-scotus-1934.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack