United States v. City of Philadelphia, 147 F.2d 291 (3rd Cir. 1945). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. City of Philadelphia, 147 F.2d 291 (3rd Cir. 1945). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: United States v. State of California (casd, 1962-09-14)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. State of California
S.D. Cal. · 1962 · signal: compare · confidence low
And what appears gradually to have evolved is the view that the Supreme Court has always retained exclusive original jurisdiction of all civil actions commenced by the United States against a State, excepting only those cases wherein the Congress has, by grant within the ambit of Constitutional power, specifically conferred concurrent jurisdiction upon the Federal district courts. [Cf.: Case v. Bowles, 327 U.S. 92, 97 , 66 S.Ct. 438 , 90 L.Ed. 552 (1946); United States v. California, 297 U.S. 175, 187-188 , 56 S.Ct. 421 , 80 L.Ed. 567 (1936); Alabama v. United States, 304 F.2d 583, 584 (5th Ci…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
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
8763.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 16, 1945.
147 F.2d 291
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.
Parker, Goodrich, Bard.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
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.