Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. City of Miami

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Decided December 3, 1981No. 77-1856Published

1DissentTjoflat, Circuit Judge

I must dissent because I believe we do not have jurisdiction to resolve this case. Accordingly, I would dismiss this appeal, leaving the consent decree in effect.

It is axiomatic that this court is one of limited, statutory jurisdiction. Huckeby v. Frozen Food Express, 555 F.2d 542, 545 (5th Cir. 1977). See also 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 & 1292 (1976). Thus, “[a]s a threshold issue, it is incumbent upon [us] to determine whether [we] may properly exercise . . . jurisdiction in each case.” United States v. Mendoza, 491 F.2d 534, 536 (5th Cir. 1974). See also Cason v. Owen, 578 F.2d 572, 573 (5th Cir.…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Elmo v. Myers v. Gilman Paper Corporation v. International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers (Afl-Cio)Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  2. Carolyn HUCKEBY, Plaintiff, v. FROZEN FOOD EXPRESS, Defendant-Appellee, v. Alice BOBO, Intervenor-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1977
  3. Ryan v. Occidental Petroleum Corp.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978
  4. United States v. Robert Mendoza, Reuben O. Mendoza, Jr., and Yolanda Ashton OrtizCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1974
  5. William W. Cason v. Mary A. Owen, Chief, Civilian Pay, Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, and Mary Ann CasonCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1978

1 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