Case: Ray v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, aka Conrail; Coral Construction Co. et al. v. King County, Washington; Johnson v. Johnson et al.; Gargallo v. Quick & Reilly Clearing Corp. et al.; Pressler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al.; In re Rettig, Davis v. Stone Container Corp.; Von Croney v. Garrett, Secretary of the Navy; Worth v. United States; Eno v. United States
Abbreviation: Ray v. Consolidated Rail Corp.
Decision Date: 1992-03-09
Docket Number: No. 91-704; No. 91-755; No. 91-847; No. 91-6236; No. 91-6272; No. 91-6384; No. 91-6395; No. 91-6481; No. 91-6505; No. 91-6648
Citation: 503 U.S. 927
Volume: 503
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: Ray v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, aka Conrail, Coral Construction Co. et al. v. King County, Washington, Johnson v. Johnson et al., Gargallo v. Quick & Reilly Clearing Corp. et al., Pressler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al., In re Rettig, Davis v. Stone Container Corp., Von Croney v. Garrett, Secretary of the Navy, Worth v. United States, Eno v. United States,
Judges: 
Pages: 927–928

Head Matter:
No. 91-704.
No. 91-755.
No. 91-847.
No. 91-6236.
No. 91-6272.
No. 91-6384.
No. 91-6395.
No. 91-6481.
No. 91-6505.
Ray v. Consolidated Rail Corporation, aka Conrail, Coral Construction Co. et al. v. King County, Washington, Johnson v. Johnson et al., Gargallo v. Quick & Reilly Clearing Corp. et al., Pressler v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. et al., In re Rettig, Davis v. Stone Container Corp., Von Croney v. Garrett, Secretary of the Navy, Worth v. United States, Eno v. United States,

Opinion:
502 U. S. 1048;
502 U. S. 1033;
502 U. S. 1059;
502 U. S. 1038;
502 U. S. 1039;
502 U. S. 1029;
502 U. S. 1042;
502 U. S. 1063;
502 U. S. 1064; and
No. 91-6648.
502 U. S. 1080. Petitions for rehearing denied.