Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. City of McAlester

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided August 14, 1979No. 76-1455Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMcKAY, Circuit Judge

I dissent from the en banc conclusion and adhere to the views expressed by Chief Judge Markey in his opinion for the original three-judge panel which is being simultaneously published. If the court had adhered to those views it would not have been necessary to reach the issues treated in Part III of today’s majority opinion. Inasmuch as the court has reached the issues discussed in Part III, I wish to express my concurrence in that portion of the opinion.

The three-judge panel opinion by Chief Judge Markey of the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, which is referred to above by…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Choate v. TrappSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  2. Choctaw Nation v. OklahomaSupreme Court of the United States · 1970
  3. Sunderland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Mullen v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1912
  5. United States v. Oklahoma Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API