Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

William J. Warner, Jr., Etc. v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the City of New Orleans, and Its Members, Capt. Alvin H. Rankin

528 F.2d 505

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1976-02-27
Topic
international-arbitration

PER CURIAM: This appeal presents the same jurisdictional issues as are involved in Muzquiz v. City of San Antonio, 5 Cir. 1976, 528 F.2d 499, today decided. The trial court’s order dismissing the complaint for want of § 1983 jurisdiction was proper for the reasons stated by us in Muzquiz. Affirmed.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed William J. Warner, Jr., Etc. v. Board of Trustees of the Police Pension Fund of the City of New Orleans, and Its Members, Capt. Alvin H. Rankin. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
WARNER v. BD. OF TRUSTEES, POLICE PENSION FUND,528 F.2d 505(5th Cir. 1976)
WILLIAM J. WARNER, JR., ET AL., ETC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF THE POLICE PENSION FUND OF THE CITY OF NEW ORLEANS, AND ITS
MEMBERS, CAPT. ALVIN H. RANKIN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 74-2303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
February 27, 1976.
Henry L. Klein, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellants.

Lamar Richardson, Jr., Metairie, La., for John Suitt.

Richard A. Dowling, Dorothy D. Wolbrette, Bueker F. Amann, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, La., for Police Pension.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., Philip D. Lorio, III, Asst. City Atty., New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
Before BROWN, Chief Judge, TUTTLE, WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORNBERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY, GEE and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] This appeal presents the same jurisdictional issues as are involved inMuzquiz v. City of San Antonio,5 Cir. 1976,528 F.2d 499, today decided.

[2] The trial court's order dismissing the complaint for want of § 1983 jurisdiction was proper for the reasons stated by us inMuzquiz.

[3] Affirmed.
[4] JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge (dissenting and concurring in part).
[5] I dissent in part and concur in part as set forth in my opinion inMuzquiz v. City of San Antonio,5 Cir. 1976,528 F.2d 499, decided this day.
[6] TUTTLE, Circuit Judge, with whom WISDOM, GOLDBERG and MORGAN, Circuit Judges, join (dissenting).
[7] I dissent from the decision in this case on the grounds stated by me in the dissent inMuzquiz v. City of San Antonio, et al.,5 Cir. 1976,528 F.2d 499, announced this day.
[8] THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[9] I concur in part and dissent in part in accordance with the views set forth in my partial concurrence and partial dissent inMuzquiz v. City of San Antonio,Page 506528 F.2d 499(5 Cir. 1976), decided this day.
[10] GODBOLD, Circuit Judge (concurring in part and dissenting in part).
[11] I dissent in part and concur in part as set forth in my opinion inMuzquiz v. City of San Antonio,528 F.2d 499[No. 74-3177] (CA 5, 1976), decided this day.