United States v. City of Miami
This text of 664 F.2d 435 (United States v. City of Miami) 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.
Opinions
The en banc court has been unable to arrive at a majority consensus as to reasoning and result in this case. Those concurring in the opinion prepared by Judge Gee would, for the reasons stated there, grant broader relief to the Appellant Fraternal Order of Police and a wider remand than would those concurring in the opinion prepared by Judge Rubin. Since all concurring in either opinion referred to agree, however, that at least the relief mandated by Judge Rubin’s opinion should be granted, and since no majority exists to grant broader relief, it is that mandate which becomes the order of the court by which the district court should be guided on the remand that we direct. Those concurring only in Judge Gee’s opinion dissent from the failure of the court’s mandate to reverse and remand more broadly. Separate opinions follow.
AFFIRMED IN PART and IN PART VACATED AND REMANDED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
664 F.2d 435, 27 Fair Empl. Prac. Cas. (BNA) 913, 1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 15514, 27 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) 32,328, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-city-of-miami-ca5-1981.