Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1974

Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant

Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided April 19, 1974 · Aldrich, Bell, Gee, Per Curiam
492 F.2d 1162; 1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 9075 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Dwight H. Moore, DeSoto, Tex., Edward Walter Dunbar, El Paso, Tex., for plaintiff-appellant., N. Alex Bickley, City Atty., Lois Bacon, T. Alex Eastus, Asst. City Attys., Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellees.

Ruben Harrison, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Frank Dyson, Etc., Etc., Arthur Lee Smith, Intervenor-Appellant

Cases that cite this one

1 later published case cites this decision.

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-Appellants, habitual traffic offenders who claim to be indigent, challenged certain sentencing procedures of the Dallas municipal courts as violating Tate v. Short, 1971, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130, and Argersinger v. Hamlin, 1972, 407 U.S. 25, 92 S.Ct. 2006, 32 L.Ed.2d 530. Their objections were to the alleged automatic conversion of fines to terms in jail, and to the imposition of such jail terms without affording counsel to indigent defendants. Declaratory and injunctive relief was sought.

The complaint, insofar as it related to defendants’ future conduct, 1 was dismissed on the authority of Becker v. Thompson, 5 Cir., 1972, 459 F.2d 919. That decision has now been reversed by the Supreme Court sub nom. Steffel v. Thompson,_ U.S. _, 94 S.Ct. 1209, 39 L.Ed.2d 505 (1974). The judgment of the district court is vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Steffel, and for further proceedings not inconsistent therewith.

Vacated and remanded with direction.

1

. In view of our remand, we do not reach any issue arising from the dismissal on the ground of mootness of that part of the case having to do with defendants’ past conduct.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.