Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

496 F.2d 213

Docket No. 73-2923.

Ridley v. McCall

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 26, 1974.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1974-06-26

2 counsel of record

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Scarpa v. U. S. Board of Parole · In re Disbarment of Kirtz

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1974-06-26

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently November 2001

13 federal appellate ·

901974198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1*214Hugh M. Dorsey, Jr., W. Lyman Dillon, Atlanta, Ga. (court-appointed), for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶2Arthur K. Bolton, Atty. Gen., Courtney W. Stanton, Asst. Atty. Gen., Stephen Parker, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.

¶3Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and RIVES and DYER, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5This is a § 1983 suit attacking on a broad front the practices of the Georgia Parole Board. The District Court dismissed the complaint without issuing a show cause order requiring a factual response by the State or holding any evidentiary hearing. The District Court was of the view that this result was compelled by this Court’s en banc decision in Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 5 Cir., 1973, 477 F.2d 278. Subsequently the judgment of this Court was vacated and remanded for determination of whether the case was moot, Scarpa v. United States Board of Parole, 1973, 414 U.S. 809, 94 S.Ct. 79, 38 L.Ed.2d 44, and thereafter this Court by order vacated the judgment of the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint as moot. Consequently, Scarpa has no precedential value.

¶6In view of this we think the interest of orderly administration calls for remand to the District Court for reconsideration. Since these sometime awesome constitutional principles ought not to be explored in a non-factual setting, the Court should take appropriate steps to assure development of the actual facts, not just the pleaded contention of the parties.

¶7Vacated and remanded.

/496/f2d/213 · .json · Public domain