Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

United States v. Albert Louis Lipscomb, Cross-Appellee

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided July 12, 2002No. 00-10461_1Published

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

  1. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better EnvironmentSupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley AuthoritySupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. Salinas v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
  4. Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn.Supreme Court of the United States · 1943
  5. Iowa Mutual Insurance v. LaPlanteSupreme Court of the United States · 1987

25 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