St. Peter's Roman Catholic Parish v. Urban Redevelopment Authority

ST. PETER’S ROMAN CATHOLIC PARISH v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF PITTSBURGH Et Al.

St. Peter's Roman Catholic Parish v. Urban Redevelopment Auth., 359 U.S. 435 (1959)

Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Decided: May 4, 1959
Docket: No. 749
Judges: Per Curiam
Citations: 359 U.S. 43579 S. Ct. 9403 L. Ed. 2d 9311959 U.S. LEXIS 1088

Cited by 9 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

(holding that the bishop owned the property in trust for the parish and he alone could dispose of it in accordance with the canons of the Roman Catholic Church)

Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church v. Wash. Presbytery, 90 A.3d 95 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014)

Cited by 9 cases

View all citing references →

Relies on it most ⓘ

In re Condemnation by the Commonwealth558 A.2d 605 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)
Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church v. Washington Presbytery90 A.3d 95 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014)
Martin v. Commonwealth556 A.2d 969 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court483 P.2d 1215 (Cal. 1971)
Everette Thompson Dawson v. United States292 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1961)
Homer R. Clinton v. United States293 F.2d 47 (10th Cir. 1961)

Most recent

Peters Creek United Presbyterian Church v. Washington Presbytery90 A.3d 95 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2014)
In re Condemnation by the Commonwealth558 A.2d 605 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)
Martin v. Commonwealth556 A.2d 969 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1989)
United Farm Workers Organizing Committee v. Superior Court483 P.2d 1215 (Cal. 1971)
West Middlesex Area School District Condemnation46 Pa. D. & C.2d 687 (1969)
Cosfol v. Varvoutis36 Pa. D. & C.2d 723 (1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list