U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 1975

Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · Decided July 3, 1975 · Coleman, Clark, Ro-Ney, Brown, Wisdom, Gewin, Bell, Thorn-Berry, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Simpson, Morgan, Roney, Gee

515 F.2d 762; 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13848 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

O'CONNOR v. First Court of Appeals (Tex. 1992)
Dos Republicas Coal Partnership v. David Saucedo, as Floodplain Administrator and County Judge of the Maverick County Commissioners Court, and the Maverick County Commissioners Court (Tex. App. 2015)
Russell v. Harrison (District Court, N.D. Mississippi 1986)
Billy D. Cook v. Robert W. Hudson, Etc. (5th Cir. 1975)

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.

070rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion April 21, 1975, 5 Cir., 1975, 511 F.2d 744)

Before COLEMAN, CLARK and RO-NEY, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

The Petition for Rehearing is denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing F~ Banc is also denied.

Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and WISDOM, GEWIN, BELL, THORN-BERRY, COLEMAN, GOLDBERG, AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, DYER, SIMPSON, MORGAN, CLARK, RONEY and GEE, Circuit Judges.

Dissenting Opinion

CLARK, Circuit Judge,

with whom Circuit Judges THORNBERRY, AINS-WORTH, SIMPSON and GEE, join (dissenting).

When it appeared my writing would express the views of the panel, particular care was taken to explicate and document what was said because it seemed absolutely necessary to cogently reinstate the core rights trampled by the school district’s arbitrary edict of forced conformity in a citizen’s private life. That endeavor failed to muster a concurrence. Now, the full Court, albeit by the narrowest margin possible, has declined to rehear the cause en banc.

Respectfully, I insist that the panel decision is (1) contrary to Supreme Court precedent, and (2) an error of exceptional importance. My best effort having been expended in the panel dissent, a further attempt at explanation appears futile. For the reasons previously stated, I dissent from the court’s denial of rehearing en banc.

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