Home/Third Circuit/Vito v. Bray

Vito v. Bray

998 F.2d 1006, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 18611, 1993 WL 255535
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit·Decided June 2, 1993·No. 92-1906·Published

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

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

998 F.2d 1006 (Vito v. Bray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.