August J. C. Egle v. Ann E. Schraedel Egle

Fifth Circuit

August J. C. Egle v. Ann E. Schraedel Egle

679 F.2d 380, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18262

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 1982

Docket82-3037

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 679 F.2d 380 (August J. C. Egle v. Ann E. Schraedel Egle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

August J. C. Egle v. Ann E. Schraedel Egle, 679 F.2d 380, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18262 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This appeal of a civil action was taken from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, a court that ceased to exist as of April 1, 1982, pursuant to an international agreement between the Republic of Panama and the United States. See Panama Canal Treaty, done September 7, 1977, reprinted in 16 Int’l. Leg.Mat. 1022 (1977), art. XI. On March 31, 1982, in an unpublished opinion filed in the last hour of the Canal Zone District Court’s existence, a divided panel of this court, without the benefit of oral argument, affirmed the district court’s judgment. 673 F.2d 1326. The appellant, Mrs. Egle, has now filed a timely petition for rehearing, which is before us for consideration.

If we have jurisdiction to do so, we should consider the matters raised by the motion. However, in light of the Panama Canal Treaty and the abolition of the United States District Court in the former Canal Zone, we are in doubt whether this court retains jurisdiction to consider the appeal further. We are also uncertain as to how, if this court is without jurisdiction, this case should be disposed. Must the case be dismissed, or is there provision for transfer of such a pending case to the Panamanian court of proper jurisdiction?

In hope of receiving guidance, we request the litigants to submit supplemental briefs on these issues. Furthermore, we request the Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State to inform the court, by letter or amicas curiae brief, of the executive branch’s opinion on these issues.

The clerk of court is instructed to contact the litigants and the Legal Adviser in regard to the establishment of a supplemental briefing schedule.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

This appeal of a civil action was taken from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of the Canal Zone, a court that ceased to exist as of April 1, 1982, pursuant to an international agreement between the Republic of Panama and the United States. See Panama Canal Treaty, done September 7, 1977, reprinted in 16 Int’l. Leg.Mat. 1022 (1977), art. XI. On March 31, 1982, in an unpublished opinion filed in the last hour of the Canal Zone District Court’s existence, a divided panel of this court, without the benefit of oral argument, affirmed the district court’s judgment. 673 F.2d 1326. The appellant, Mrs. Egle, has now filed a timely petition for rehearing, which is before us for consideration.

If we have jurisdiction to do so, we should consider the matters raised by the motion. However, in light of the Panama Canal Treaty and the abolition of the United States District Court in the former Canal Zone, we are in doubt whether this court retains jurisdiction to consider the appeal further. We are also uncertain as to how, if this court is without jurisdiction, this case should be disposed. Must the case be dismissed, or is there provision for transfer of such a pending case to the Panamanian court of proper jurisdiction?

In hope of receiving guidance, we request the litigants to submit supplemental briefs on these issues. Furthermore, we request the Legal Adviser of the United States Department of State to inform the court, by letter or amicas curiae brief, of the executive branch’s opinion on these issues.

The clerk of court is instructed to contact the litigants and the Legal Adviser in regard to the establishment of a supplemental briefing schedule.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 F.2d 380, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 18262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/august-j-c-egle-v-ann-e-schraedel-egle-ca5-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack