Legal Opinion
Penn v. Schlesinger
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Decided July 26, 1974No. 72-3684PublishedCited by 28 opinions
1Per curiam
For the reasons set out in the dissenting opinion of Judge Godbold, Penn v. Schlesinger, 490 F.2d 700, 707-714 (CA5, 1973), the court en bane concludes that the claims of the individual plaintiffs should have been dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.1
The opinion of the panel is reversed. The order of the District Court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the case.
2DissentTuttle, Senior Circuit Judge, joined by Wisdom, Goldberg and Morgan, Circuit Judges,
With deference, I feel that I must dissent from the decision and the opinion of the Court, sitting en banc, in reversing the denial by the trial court of a…
3Cases cited15 opinions
- Monroe v. PapeSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- McKart v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
- Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1968
- McNeese v. Board of Education for Community Unit School District 187 CahokiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
4Cited by28 opinions
- Taylor v. JonesCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1981
- Ettinger v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1975
- Dr. Saeed GABALLAH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Donald E. JOHNSON, Et Al., Defendants-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1980
- Davis-Warren Auctioneers, J v. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 2000
- Johnson v. HoffmanDistrict Court, E.D. Missouri · 1977
23 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.