United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
DUHÉ, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part, dissenting in part:
I write separately because, although I concur in the conclusion reached by Judge Wiener that-we must reverse Lipscomb’s conviction, vacate his sentence, and remand for a new trial, I cannot join his method of getting there. I adopt Judge Wiener’s factual and procedural background sections; concur in the result but not the reasoning of Part III; dissent from Parts IV, V, and VI; and concur in Part VII. I begin with an overview of the appropriate analytical framework.
I. ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK
Judge Wiener’s opinion merges analysis of…
2Cases cited30 opinions
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
- Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
- Salinas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.