Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn

466 U.S. 521

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1984-04-30
Topic
general

Per Curiam. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Vaughn. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
3 opinions
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.v. VAUGHN,466 U.S. 521(1984)
WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORP.v. VAUGHN ET AL.
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 82-2042.
Argued March 19, 1984
Decided April 30, 1984
Certiorari dismissed. Reported below:702 F.2d 137.
James W. Mooreargued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs wereWalter A. Paulson IIandStuart I. Saltman.Clyde E. Murphyargued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief wereJack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Charles Stephen Ralston, O.Peter Sherwood, Ronald L. Ellis, Judith Reed, andJohn W. Walker.fn*
PER CURIAM.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.Page 522
  1. Page 521Robert E. Williams, Douglas S. McDowell, andBarbara L.Neilsonfiled a brief for the Equal Employment Advisory Council asamicuscuriaeurging reversal. ↩