Fulford v. Klein

5th Cir.

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Citations: 550 F.2d 342, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13904

Decision Date: 4/8/1977

Docket Number: No. 74-2723

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Fulford v. Klein, 550 F.2d 342, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13904 (5th Cir. 1977)

More Cases: 5th Cir. decisions from 1977


Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

Highly CitedTop 2% most-cited · cited by 67 decisions
67
Citing decisions
2
Authorities cited
1
statute cited
6+
Courts citing

Citations by decade

11
44
11
1
1970s1980s1990s2010s

Courts citing this case

5th Cir.30
11th Cir.8
4th Cir.3
E.D. Pa.3
3d Cir.2
E.D. La.2
Most recently cited by10
  • 2019Crochet v. Russell E.D. La.
  • 1998Clarke v. Stalder 5th Cir.
  • 1995Abella v. Rubino 11th Cir.
  • 1994Heck v. Humphrey U.S.
  • 1994Boyd v. Biggers 5th Cir.
  • 1993Parker v. Fort Worth Police Department 5th Cir.
  • 1993Burge v. Parish of St. Tammany 5th Cir.
  • 1993Lee v. Purpero E.D. Wis.
  • 1990Prather v. Norman 11th Cir.
  • 1990Young v. Biggers 5th Cir.
Cites 1 statute
  • Civil action for deprivation of rights
Cites 1 case

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.


Opinion

John FULFORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Frank KLEIN, etc., et al., etc., Defendants-Appellees.

Attorneys

  • John Fulford, pro se.
  • John Baus, New Orleans, La., Richard M. Lannen, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant.
  • William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., New Orleans, La., John S. Baker, Jr., Louise Korns, Joseph B. Tosterud, Jr., William L. Brockman, Asst. Dist. Attys., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
majority PER CURIAM:

This case was decided by a divided panel of this Court, the opinion being reported at 529 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1976). Petition for rehearing en banc was granted. Fulford v. Klein, 529 F.2d 384 (5th Cir. 1976). After additional briefing and oral argument, the en banc court has decided to adhere to the majority opinion of the panel, so that opinion now states the position of the en banc court on this case.

Accordingly, the en banc court affirms the district court’s holding that the civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, if any, is not properly before the Court at this time because it involves an issue which goes to the constitutionality of petitioner’s presently valid conviction, but vacates the order that the case be dismissed, and remands for reconsideration in light of the statute of limitations problem.

VACATED AND REMANDED.

Chat with this case using AI

Ask CiteLaw's AI Navigator anything about this case, check whether it is still good law, and see every case that cites it. Sign up for CiteLaw free today to get started.