Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc.

Fifth Circuit

Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc.

515 F.2d 762, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13848

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 1975

Docket74-1038

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 515 F.2d 762 (Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc.) 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

Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc., 515 F.2d 762, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13848 (5th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinions

CLARK, Circuit Judge,

with whom Circuit Judges THORNBERRY, AINS-WORTH, SIMPSON and GEE, join (dissenting).

When it appeared my writing would express the views of the panel, particular care was taken to explicate and document what was said because it seemed absolutely necessary to cogently reinstate the core rights trampled by the school district’s arbitrary edict of forced conformity in a citizen’s private life. That endeavor failed to muster a concurrence. Now, the full Court, albeit by the narrowest margin possible, has declined to rehear the cause en banc.

Respectfully, I insist that the panel decision is (1) contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and (2) an error of exceptional importance. My best effort having been expended in the panel dissent, a further attempt at explanation appears futile. For the reasons previously stated, I dissent from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

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

CLARK, Circuit Judge,

with whom Circuit Judges THORNBERRY, AINS-WORTH, SIMPSON and GEE, join (dissenting).

When it appeared my writing would express the views of the panel, particular care was taken to explicate and document what was said because it seemed absolutely necessary to cogently reinstate the core rights trampled by the school district’s arbitrary edict of forced conformity in a citizen’s private life. That endeavor failed to muster a concurrence. Now, the full Court, albeit by the narrowest margin possible, has declined to rehear the cause en banc.

Respectfully, I insist that the panel decision is (1) contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and (2) an error of exceptional importance. My best effort having been expended in the panel dissent, a further attempt at explanation appears futile. For the reasons previously stated, I dissent from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 F.2d 762, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13848, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/billy-d-cook-v-robert-w-hudson-etc-ca5-1975.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack