Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

723 F.2d 1164

Docket No. 82-1185.

Kramer v. Price

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided Jan. 30, 1984.

Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1984-01-30

2 counsel of record

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“After the panel decision in this case, reported at 712 F.2d 174 (5th Cir.1983), was vacated by our grant of rehearing en banc, the Texas statute at issue was repealed and replaced by another differing from it in many respects-one that appears would not bear on Kramer’s conduct which resulted in her conviction. We are aware of no other case involving the constitutionality of the earlier, now repealed statute. In view, therefore, of the limited scope of action remaining open to us after this development, we affirm the judgment of the district court but without approving or adopting its rationale.”

quoted by 2 later decisions, including Robinson v. Township of Waterford, Galloway v. State

Relies on Kramer v. Price

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1984-01-30

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently August 2014

4 federal appellate · 7 state decisions

701984199020002010decided

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 →

¶1Douglas M. Becker, Charles A. Palmer, Asst. Attys. Gen., Austin, Tex., for respondents-appellants.

¶2Paul H. Chitwood, Dallas, Tex., for petitioner-appellee.

¶3Before CLARK, Chief Judge, BROWN, WISDOM, GEE, RUBIN, REAVLEY, POL-ITZ, RANDALL, TATE, JOHNSON, WILLIAMS, GARWOOD, JOLLY, HIGGIN-BOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM:

¶5After the panel decision in this case, reported at 712 F.2d 174 (5th Cir.1983), was vacated by our grant of rehearing en bane, the Texas statute at issue was repealed and replaced by another differing from it in many respects — one that it appears would not bear on Kramer’s conduct which resulted in her conviction. We are aware of no other case involving the constitutionality of the earlier, now-repealed statute. In view, therefore, of the limited scope of action remaining open to us after this development, we affirm the judgment of the district court but without approving or adopting its rationale.

¶6AFFIRMED.

¶7WISDOM, Circuit Judge,

¶8concurring:

¶9I concur in the sound result reached by this Court en banc. I feel compelled to say, *1165however, that my concurrence is not a recantation of the views I expressed in the panel opinion.

/723/f2d/1164 · .json · Public domain