Smith v. Curtis
416 U.S. 995, 94 S. Ct. 2409
Opinion
C. A. 3d Cir. Motion of respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis granted. Certiorari denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Smith v. Curtis, 416 U.S. 995, 94 S. Ct. 2409 (1974).
416 U.S. 995 (Smith v. Curtis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Rodriguez v. City of Passaic
730 F. Supp. 1314 (D. New Jersey, 1990)
District Council 47 v. Bradley
795 F.2d 310 (Third Circuit, 1986)
Davidson v. Cannon
474 U.S. 344 (Supreme Court, 1986)
United States v. Franzen
669 F.2d 433 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)
United States ex rel. Hoover v. Franzen
669 F.2d 433 (Seventh Circuit, 1982)
Ressler v. Scheipe
505 F. Supp. 155 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1981)
Pitrone v. Mercadante
420 F. Supp. 1384 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
6th Camden Corp. v. Evesham Tp., Burlington Cty.
420 F. Supp. 709 (D. New Jersey, 1976)
Donald F. Garrett v. James B. Bamford, Chairman
538 F.2d 63 (Third Circuit, 1976)
Gockley v. VanHoove
409 F. Supp. 645 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
Padover v. Gimbel Bros., Inc.
412 F. Supp. 920 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1976)
Pearl Spence, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jerome W. Spence, Deceased v. Henry D. Staras
507 F.2d 554 (Seventh Circuit, 1974)