Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

United States v. City of Philadelphia, 8763 (1945)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 8763 Visitors: 12
Judges: Parker and Goodrich, Circuit Judges, and Bard, District Judge
Filed: Feb. 16, 1945
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2017
Summary: 147 F.2d 291 (1945) UNITED STATES of America v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Rufus S. Reeves, Director of the Department of Public Health, and Herbert M. Packer, Chief of the Division of Housing and Sanitation of the Department of Public Health of the City of Philadelphia, Appellants. No. 8763. Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Argued February 14, 1945. Decided February 16, 1945. Howard E. Stern and Samuel Feldman, Asst. City Sols., both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Frank F. Truscutt, City Sol., of Phi
More
147 F.2d 291 (1945)

UNITED STATES of America
v.
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA; Rufus S. Reeves, Director of the Department of Public Health, and Herbert M. Packer, Chief of the Division of Housing and Sanitation of the Department of Public Health of the City of Philadelphia, Appellants.

No. 8763.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Argued February 14, 1945.
Decided February 16, 1945.

Howard E. Stern and Samuel Feldman, Asst. City Sols., both of Philadelphia, Pa. (Frank F. Truscutt, City Sol., of Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Vernon L. Wilkinson, Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D. C. (J. Edward Williams, Acting Head, Lands Division, of Washington, D. C., Gerald A. Gleeson, U. S. Atty., of Philadelphia, Pa., and Kelsey Martin Mott, Atty. Dept. of Justice, of Washington, D. C., on the brief), for appellee.

Before PARKER and GOODRICH, Circuit Judges, and BARD, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This case will be affirmed for reasons adequately stated in the opinion of the District Judge, 56 F. Supp. 862. The fact that the buildings here were permanent and not temporary structures furnishes no adequate ground for distinguishing the case from the one before this Court in United States v. City of Chester, 3 Cir., 144 F.2d *292 415. We gave careful consideration in that case to the real questions now before us and see no reason to modify the conclusions there announced.

Affirmed.

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer