Lile v. McKune

Tenth Circuit

Lile v. McKune

299 F.3d 1229, 2002 WL 1902898

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

DecidedAugust 20, 2002

DocketNos. 98-3292, 98-3294

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 299 F.3d 1229 (Lile v. McKune) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lile v. McKune, 299 F.3d 1229, 2002 WL 1902898 (10th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002), we vacate our prior opinion, order and mandate to the district court and remand with direction to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Petitioners-Appellants’ claims pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution do not rise to the level of compulsion contemplated by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. Id. at 2032-35 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (when no single rationale explains the result of a fragmented Supreme Court, the holding is the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds” (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)).

REMANDED.

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

McKAY, Circuit Judge.

On remand from the United States Supreme Court’s plurality opinion in McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. -, 122 S.Ct. 2017, 153 L.Ed.2d 47 (2002), we vacate our prior opinion, order and mandate to the district court and remand with direction to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Petitioners-Appellants’ claims pursuant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution do not rise to the level of compulsion contemplated by Justice O’Connor’s concurring opinion. Id. at 2032-35 (O’Connor, J., concurring); see Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977) (when no single rationale explains the result of a fragmented Supreme Court, the holding is the “position taken by those Members who concurred in the judgments on the narrowest grounds” (quoting Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 169 n. 15, 96 S.Ct. 2909, 49 L.Ed.2d 859 (1976)).

REMANDED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 F.3d 1229, 2002 WL 1902898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lile-v-mckune-ca10-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack