Chisom v. Roemer

Fifth Circuit

Chisom v. Roemer

917 F.2d 187, 1990 WL 166725

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 2, 1990

DocketNo. 89-3654

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 917 F.2d 187 (Chisom v. Roemer) 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

Chisom v. Roemer, 917 F.2d 187, 1990 WL 166725 (5th Cir. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs in this action originally claimed that defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2 et seq., codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq. (Voting Rights Act). The district court ruled against the plaintiffs on the constitutional claims and the Voting Rights Act claims. The district court’s ruling on the constitutional claims was not appealed. Thus, there remains pending before this court an appeal of the district court’s disposition of the Voting Rights Act claims.

In view of the fact that this court, sitting en banc in LULAC v. Clements, 914 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.1990), has overruled Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.1988) (Chisom I), this case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss all claims under the Voting Rights Act for failure to state a claim upon whieh relief may be granted. See Falcon v. General Telephone Co., 815 F.2d 317, 319-20 (5th Cir.1987) (“[0]nce an appellate court has decided an issue in a particular case both the District Court and the Court of Appeals should be bound by that decision in any subsequent proceeding in the same case____ unless ... controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue.”) (citations omitted); White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.1967). Each party shall bear its own costs.

REMANDED with instructions. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

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

PER CURIAM:

The plaintiffs in this action originally claimed that defendants violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2 et seq., codified as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq. (Voting Rights Act). The district court ruled against the plaintiffs on the constitutional claims and the Voting Rights Act claims. The district court’s ruling on the constitutional claims was not appealed. Thus, there remains pending before this court an appeal of the district court’s disposition of the Voting Rights Act claims.

In view of the fact that this court, sitting en banc in LULAC v. Clements, 914 F.2d 620 (5th Cir.1990), has overruled Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F.2d 1056 (5th Cir.1988) (Chisom I), this case is remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss all claims under the Voting Rights Act for failure to state a claim upon whieh relief may be granted. See Falcon v. General Telephone Co., 815 F.2d 317, 319-20 (5th Cir.1987) (“[0]nce an appellate court has decided an issue in a particular case both the District Court and the Court of Appeals should be bound by that decision in any subsequent proceeding in the same case____ unless ... controlling authority has since made a contrary decision of law applicable to the issue.”) (citations omitted); White v. Murtha, 377 F.2d 428, 431-32 (5th Cir.1967). Each party shall bear its own costs.

REMANDED with instructions. The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

917 F.2d 187, 1990 WL 166725, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chisom-v-roemer-ca5-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack