United States v. City of Miami
5th Cir.
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CITY OF MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, Kenneth R. Harrison, President, and the Miami Police Benevolent Association, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges
- Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, BROWN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCH-ETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAMUEL D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
- in the Per Curiam, joined by BROWN, ANDERSON, RANDALL and THOMAS A. CLARK, Circuit Judges:
- joined by CHARLES CLARK, AINSWORTH, RONEY, JAMES C. HILL, FAY, VANCE, GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY and POLITZ, Circuit Judges:
- joined by GODBOLD, Chief Judge, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, TATE, SAM D. JOHNSON and JERRE S. WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges:
Attorneys
- Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, Robert ,D. Klausner, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
- Brian K. Landsberg, Mildred M. Matesich, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Griffin B. Bell, U. S. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Drew S. Days, III, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., David L. Rose, Squire Padgett, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the U. S.
- George F. Knox, Jr., Miami, Fla., for City of Miami, Fla.
majority
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.
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.