Borelli v. City of Reading, No. 75-1789
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
| Writing for the Court | Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN and WEIS; PER CURIAM |
| Citation | 532 F.2d 950 |
| Parties | Mrs. Carmella M. BORELLI, Appellant, v. CITY OF READING et al., Appellees. |
| Docket Number | No. 75-1789 |
| Decision Date | 31 March 1976 |
Page 950
v.
CITY OF READING et al., Appellees.
Third Circuit.
Decided March 31, 1976.
Page 951
William R. Mosolino, Orwigsburg, Pa., for appellant.
Robert T. Miller, Charles H. Weidner, Stevens & Lee, Reading, Pa., for appellees, City of Reading and Redevelopment Authority of the City of Reading.
Carl Strass, Robert A. Kerry, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Walter Kiechel, Jr., Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Robert E. J. Curran, U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., William J. McGettigan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee, Dept. of H.U.D.
Before SEITZ, Chief Judge, and VAN DUSEN and WEIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Settled policy in the federal courts discourages piecemeal appeals and, so, generally recourse may be had to appellate tribunals only when final orders are the subject of review. While the inevitable exceptions exist, none are applicable to the appellant here. Accordingly, we must dismiss this appeal from orders dismissing the complaint without prejudice and denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
With the aid of funds supplied by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Redevelopment Authority of Reading began work on a project to rehabilitate part of the downtown area. The plaintiff, who owns her home in the redevelopment area, opposed the proposed changes in her neighborhood and filed suit in the district court. She asked for injunctive and declaratory relief, contending that H.U.D. failed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. After the parties had served and answered interrogatories, both sides moved for summary judgment. The district court ruled that the defendants' motion insofar as "they allege plaintiff's lack of standing is granted and the complaint will be dismissed without prejudice." Plaintiff's motion was denied. The plaintiff did not file an amendment to her complaint but instead took this appeal from both adjudications.
The defendants' motion for summary judgment in substance alleged that they had conformed to the applicable legal requirements, that plaintiff was bound by reason of res judicata because of a ruling in a suit filed in the state court, and that she lacked standing to sue. The district court passed only upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litig., Civ. No. 12-5120 (WHW)(CLW)
...complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.Shane , 213 F.3d at 116 (citing Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (3d Cir.1976) ).172 F.Supp.3d 740DISCUSSION I. Counts One through Three: the Sherman Act Declaratory Judgment Claims Allege Justic......
-
Aiken v. Obledo, Civ. No. S-75-76 TJM.
...1974); Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 492 F.2d 413 (3rd Cir. 1974); Cicchetti v. Lucey, 514 F.2d 362 (1st Cir. 1975); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3rd Cir. 1976). But the court may look beyond the allegations in the complaint when the factual basis for a party's standing is contested. ......
-
In re Daniels, Bankruptcy No. 03-10845 SR.
...Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees v. Bradley, 795 F.2d 310, 316 (3d Cir.1986) (quoting Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1) (1976) ("[W]e suggest that district judges expressly state, where appropriate, that the [pleader] has leave to amend."). Further, the ......
-
J.D.G. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., Civ. No. 09–502–SLR.
...Alston v. Parker, 363 F.3d 229 (3d Cir.2004); Grayson v. Mayview State Hosp., 293 F.3d 103, 111 (3d Cir.2002); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951–52 (3d Cir.1976). On July 6, 2010, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment against the DDOE. (D.I. 50) On July 20, 2010......
-
In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser & Antitrust Consumer Litig., Civ. No. 12-5120 (WHW)(CLW)
...complaint, at which time an order to dismiss the action would be appropriate.Shane , 213 F.3d at 116 (citing Borelli v. City of Reading , 532 F.2d 950, 951 n. 1 (3d Cir.1976) ).172 F.Supp.3d 740DISCUSSION I. Counts One through Three: the Sherman Act Declaratory Judgment Claims Allege Justic......
-
Aiken v. Obledo, Civ. No. S-75-76 TJM.
...1974); Schiaffo v. Helstoski, 492 F.2d 413 (3rd Cir. 1974); Cicchetti v. Lucey, 514 F.2d 362 (1st Cir. 1975); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3rd Cir. 1976). But the court may look beyond the allegations in the complaint when the factual basis for a party's standing is contested. ......
-
Brace v. O'Neill, No. 76-2207
...appeal. 2 I. Courts of appeals normally review only final orders of the district courts. 3 28 U.S.C. § 1291; 4 Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950, 951 (3d Cir. 1976); In re Grand Jury Proceedings (U.S. Steel Clairton Works), 525 F.2d 151, 154-55 (3d Cir. 1975); see In re Good Deal Sup......
-
Peterkin v. Jeffes, No. 87-1312
...but on sufficiency of litigant's concern with subject matter, and exposure to actual or threatened injury); Borelli v. City of Reading, 532 F.2d 950 (3d Cir.1976) (question of standing generally determined from face of the 26 This Court has repeatedly analyzed access to courts and legal ass......