# Walter T. Peters, Jr. v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey

> Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · February 22, 1994 · 16 F.3d 1346

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486448

## Case

- **Full name:** Walter T. PETERS, Jr. v. DELAWARE RIVER PORT AUTHORITY OF PENNSYLVANIA AND NEW JERSEY, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- **Decided:** February 22, 1994
- **Citations:** 16 F.3d 1346
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** Hutchinson, Cowen, Nygaard, Sloviter, Becker, Stapleton, Mansmann, Greenberg, Scirica, Alito, Roth, Lewis
- **Cited by:** 218 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486448

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the Delaware River Port Authority's status under state law weighs in favor of the conclusion that the agency does not enjoy sovereign immunity, especially in light of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court case holding that the DRPA is not "`an integral part of the Commonwe…
- holding that, despite the agency’s separate corporate existence, power to enter into contracts, hold property, and set and collect tolls, “the significant control the states have through appointing the [agency]’s Board weighs slightly in favor of the [agency]’s being an alter …
- finding that New Jersey and Pennsylvania appointed all sixteen members of the Board of Commissioners of the Delaware River Port Authority and holding that this weighed “slightly” in favor of alter ego status and immunity
- holding that, because the port authority was not an arm of either state, it must be a “person” under section 1983
- finding no abuse of discretion in denial of motion for leave to assert counterclaim

## Opinion text

SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING
Feb. 22, 1994
The petition for rehearing filed by appellee having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and to all the other available circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service, and no judge who concurred in the decision having asked for rehearing, and a majority of the circuit judges of the circuit in regular active service not having voted for rehearing by the court in banc, the petition for rehearing is denied.
NYGAARD, Circuit Judge, would have granted rehearing in bane.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9486448. Public record. Not legal advice.