Case Name: TRIANGLE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William S. RITCHIE, Commissioner, State Road Commission of the State of West Virginia, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-05-14
Citations: 429 F.2d 423
Docket Number: No. 14033
Parties: TRIANGLE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William S. RITCHIE, Commissioner, State Road Commission of the State of West Virginia, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 429
Pages: 423–426

Head Matter:
TRIANGLE IMPROVEMENT COUNCIL et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. William S. RITCHIE, Commissioner, State Road Commission of the State of West Virginia, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14033.
United. States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Argued May 6, 1970.
Decided May 14, 1970.
Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied July 14, 1970.
Michael Davidson, New York City (Jack Greenberg, New York City, John Boettner, Jr., A. Andrew MacQueen, III, Charleston, W.Va., Thomas J. O'Sullivan, New Haven, Conn., Peter M. Collins, Burlington, Vt., and Steve Young, New York City, on the brief), for appellants.
Walter H. Fleischer, Atty., Department of Justice (William D. Ruckelshaus, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alan S. Rosenthal, Atty., Department of Justice, Wade H. Ballard, U. S. Atty., L. Alvin Hunt, Stanley E. Preiser and Preiser, Greene, Hunt & Wilson, Charleston, W. Va., on the brief), for appellees.
Before BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges, and JONES, District Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
We affirm on the opinion of the district court, 314 F.Supp. 20 (S.D.W.Va. July 2, 1969).
Affirmed.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
PER CURIAM.
Upon consideration of the motion filed by the plaintiffs-appellants, Triangle Improvement Council, et al., for reconsideration of the opinion of this court announced on May 14, 1970, affirming the decision of the District Court, it is
Ordered that the said motion be, and it is hereby, denied.