Case: In re Lighter, dba Wells Fargo Protective Alarm Services Co.; In re Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S. A.; In re Hutchinson, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hutchinson, Deceased, et al.; In re Franklin; In re Echols; In re Franklin; In re Peterson; In re Bryant; In re Lee; In re Alcan Aluminum Corp.; In re Shores; In re Thornwell; In re Tamayo; In re Moore; In re Fitzpatrick; In re Crowder et al.; In re Smith; and In re Moses
Abbreviation: In re Lighter
Decision Date: 1995-10-02
Docket Number: No. 94-2094; No. 94-2103; No. 94-2129; No. 94-9282; No. 94-9405; No. 94-9526; No. 94-9560; No. 94-9643; No. 94-9653; No. 95-269; No. 95-5175; No. 95-5184; No. 95-5228; No. 95-5236; No. 95-5452; No. 95-5458; No. 95-5469; No. 95-5512
Citation: 516 U.S. 805
Volume: 516
Reporter: United States Reports
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Parties: In re Lighter, dba Wells Fargo Protective Alarm Services Co.; In re Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S. A.; In re Hutchinson, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hutchinson, Deceased, et al.; In re Franklin; In re Echols; In re Franklin; In re Peterson; In re Bryant; In re Lee; In re Alcan Aluminum Corp.; In re Shores; In re Thornwell; In re Tamayo; In re Moore; In re Fitzpatrick; In re Crowder et al.; In re Smith; and In re Moses.
Judges: 
Pages: 805–805

Head Matter:
No. 94-2094.
No. 94-2103.
No. 94-2129.
No. 94-9282.
No. 94-9405.
No. 94-9526.
No. 94-9560.
No. 94-9643.
No. 94-9653.
No. 95-269.
No. 95-5175.
No. 95-5184.
No. 95-5228.
No. 95-5236.
No. 95-5452.
No. 95-5458.
No. 95-5469.
No. 95-5512.
In re Lighter, dba Wells Fargo Protective Alarm Services Co.; In re Char Yigh Marine (Panama) S. A.; In re Hutchinson, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Hutchinson, Deceased, et al.; In re Franklin; In re Echols; In re Franklin; In re Peterson; In re Bryant; In re Lee; In re Alcan Aluminum Corp.; In re Shores; In re Thornwell; In re Tamayo; In re Moore; In re Fitzpatrick; In re Crowder et al.; In re Smith; and In re Moses.

Opinion:
Petitions for writs of mandamus denied.