Vito v. Bray

Third Circuit

Vito v. Bray

998 F.2d 1006, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 18611, 1993 WL 255535

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit

DecidedJune 2, 1993

Docket92-1906

StatusPublished

This text of 998 F.2d 1006 (Vito v. Bray) 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

Vito v. Bray, 998 F.2d 1006, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 18611, 1993 WL 255535 (3d Cir. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

998 F.2d 1006

Vito (Emanuel J.)
v.
Bray (Larry), McCormick (Robert), Cimacasky (Richard),
Knitter (Thomas), Bavaria (Thomas), George (Kenny), Serfass
(Robert), Flyte (Clayton), Powell (Roxanne), Ceraul (David),
Molnar (John), Lysek (Stanley), Albanese (Leroy), Philips
(Milton), Baker (David), Sabia (Tony), Prichard (Richard),
DeArment (Douglas), Bushkirk (David), Blue Mountain
Consolidated Water Co., Borough of Wind Gap, Wind Gap
Borough Counsel, Wind Gap Planning Com'n

NO. 92-1906

United States Court of Appeals,
Third Circuit.

June 02, 1993

Appeal From: E.D.Pa.

VACATED.

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