CTA Case No. 3676 (Resolution)
t�. �. <t,PIJl:H OP' TU!! HHLJPP~ .:-OURT 0 " T1\.:X APPEALS ot�c:t.~ll' OfT"' u ,.. "l'Z P0 .L 1� HILIPPia �~ , 1 ti io r, -v r ' � 'I . � CA~L � 367 .I: -X -- - - - - n nt. X - -- R e . o r. T l 0 It aring t ~-t 1; ti on. r n 1 ng r i n t r t ed i 1 1. 1I uin<J 't 1 to ur naic d in he � 0 i n ~ i tu r }! tit1on r vi � fi1ec on r 1 ,1 3 ur l 0 II l .{ veuu s lreaay ~:,. r nte t. cl 1.1 t cr~;. i t i VOl" rein ith t_l is U IC red.Lt 117 , t s > e b_r 28 , 1 th r ing r:.o obj cti on the part 0 nt1 'hi. urt r olv , pr 'J -or , 0 gr nt irJ ..ot n . L p iti n for r v b r d tl- dr nu i c c1o u t.l t� u o City, 2 , l ... J . 167
Want an analysis of this document?
Ask ASG Legal AI to summarize it, compare it with other rulings, or explain how it applies to your situation — it researches from this same library.