Robert Michael Davis v. Lewis Williams

in this the Coast Guard actions of that the 89(a) by §

case were authorized Fourth I find no consent.

Panama’s because there was violation

Amendment board, and search stop,

probable cause vessel, the circumstances and' because I, therefore, reach the do not exigent.

were by my brothers. discussed

other issues al., Michael et

Robert DAVIS

Plaintiffs-Appellees, al., et

Lewis WILLIAMS

Defendants-Appellants.

No. 77-1299. Appeals, Court of

United States

Fifth Circuit. May Rorschach, Atty., John W. City J. Don McGrath,

Chandler, City Asst. Robert S. Tex., defendants-appel- Attys., Irving, lants. Dallas, Tex., Baron, M.

Frederick plaintiffs-appellees. C., Washington, D. ami- Wolly,

Michael S. cus curiae. COLEMAN, Judge, and

Before Chief AINSWORTH, GODBOLD, BROWN, RO FAY, NEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, RU BIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, M. FRANK GARZA, HENDERSON, JOHNSON, Jr., POLITZ, HATCHETT, REAVLEY, AN DERSON, RANDALL, TATE, D. SAM CLARK, A. Cir and THOMAS JOHNSON Judges.* cuit * participate Judge Goldberg therefore does not in this decision. was a member of the en banc participate 46(c) partici- Judge did not Charles Clark § court under 28 U.S.C.A. pated argument consideration or decision of this case. in the oral of the case en banc. Since that time he has taken senior status and GEE, “We realize this is a serious Judge: Circuit [the letter] may permanently sever our measure and leavening impru- a Intransigence and chief, we relationship with the wish personnel con- have transmuted this dence bring t° this situation to the attention of Texas, depart- fire troversy Irving, management general public.” city ment into a constitutional one. Williams, feeling authority his Chief Irving city In 1976 fathers decided intending punish position traduced and take over an ambulance service and have could, Davis if he consulted attor- department operate the fire it. The local suspended ney legal advice. He then association, here, fighters’ appellee fire an order, indefinitely by written Davis a many people took the view that new would authority following: cited as its Appellant have to be hired to do this. Williams, chief, thought only the fire a few

more would be needed. The matter became IRVING DEPARTMENT OF FIRE public a feelings issue on which within the RULES &'REGULATIONS department high. ran ARTICLE 5.3 MEMBERS

Following budget meeting a at which hiring Chief Williams defended his minimal All members shall: plan, fighters’ the fire association held its meeting prepared open own an letter to Williams, denouncing leadership his and ac- being party any 41. Refrain from him, cusing among things, gam- other gossip, report, activity malicious or bling with their lives and those of the citi- disrupt department would tend to morale zenry failing up and of to stand for the bring department or to the or discredit special interests of fighters. fire thereof; making deroga- or any member Learning that this letter being circulat- tory adversely criticizing statements or ed signatures, newspaper local made activities, officers, department policy, for the troubled waters with baited hook. except by report written Chief reporter

A informed Williams of the im- Department, through channels. pending letter. Williams declined comment ****** seeing Davis, before appellee it and called president. association’s When Davis ac- ARTICLE 5.5 OFFENSES knowledged letter, circulation of the Chief punishable by reprimand, Offenses are Williams reminded him of the existence of rank, suspension, reduction in or dismiss- grievance established procedures. al. A. Offenses

Next the reporter approached Davis, who letter, ing’s paper: obliged that were bannered in next morn- him with comments, based on the (5) ****** ^[******] Conduct order. president IPFFA Mike Davis said the 2201 CITY OF ORDINANCE NO. “morale of department the fire has stead- IRVING, TEXAS

ily dropped since the chief has assumed the morale assumed his all-time low. than the leadership of the department more “We feel the eight result of his years ago. leadership responsibilities, chief has never department eight years is at an really chief, MOVAL OR SUSPENSION SECTION (8) ****** ^{[******] [******]} Conduct 37. GROUNDS prejudicial to FOR order; RE- reciting things, vague, the above continued

The order then overbroad, facially Davis’ statements unconstitutional un- leading up to facts his comments set newspaper quoting der the first and fourteenth amendments. It concluded: out above. they The district court held that were un- article, constitutional, which is at- and as had copy both In hereto, Davis is Robert Michael therefore en- applied tached been to Davis.1 It criticising my leader- quoted. repeatedly joined the enforcement of making statements that ship as Chief and reinstatement, with costs ordered Davis’ disrupt depart- certainly tended to have appeal, this Chief attorney’s fees. On ment morale. commission, Williams, city the and the upon Based an overall review of the' (hereafter the collectively referred to as II, Equipment conduct of Fire Officer portion that of the city) complain only of matter, Davis this in- Robert Michael in the judgment facially that holds invalid cluding Depart- the violations the Fire of “[cjonduct preju- rule and ordinance City Regulations ment Rules and of We are thus to good dicial to order.”2 given I have Irving Ordinance No. provision, ap- whether such a as determine II, Mi- Equipment Operator Fire Robert plied municipal the fire to behavior suspension chael Davis an indefinite fighters, as to vague is so or overbroad and violation. separate each such action inquiry offend the Constitution. Our is narrowed, however, followed, somewhat the con- proceeding suit under 42 This contending, among other text of this case. U.S.C. 1983 and § 1. The court’s formal informal Its nent prohibits Irving whether firemen or to of the home or that, Arnett case. This with it certain limitations on one’s tory concern think, derogatory statement? That’s a beyond L.Ed.2d lation is unconstitutional on its face and in its tion. being applied by the tions and application in this case. speak, Amendment to United States Constitution. unconstitutional protected LIAMS, Plaintiffs of their Article Rules and Section 37 8 of the are underlying 4. The court finds that Article 5.3 In Now, certainly public employment carries 5. The Court finds that the said here, vague, light statements, but and the rulings ¶5.5 5 of the limitations 15], they were: in a manner so as to job this Ordinances, of the Regulations overbroad and otherwise ¶ I have concluded that this reasons are made clear are made to the issues or family the First Amendment to the from bench: Supreme regulation, firemen from in that anywhere. rights protected by the whether those statements authorities, regulation just absolutely findings, United States Constitu- defendant, members and indefiniteness and Irving City they prohibit as stated and Ordinance permitted Court has private [94 I Fire think, goes so making deroga- And what is a press, Arnett versus in the Irving, LEWIS WIL- far as Department deprive matters or above, spoken under the matter, the First ¶ 41 and to other right conduct Regula- privacy Texas, perti- regu- far on its to- I 2. Mr. Davis was brief to us ent with the first tutional on its face.” prejudicial abandons under the court below that Mr. Davis could challenge sponsoring quoted above. Chief Williams pay; ment of First Amendment think its overbroad. tion, just guage. whether that one is violative good order” also. We need to find out trary good order. order. part of the state statute. stand in the certain standards of conduct that are doesn’t ited. interrupting THE COURT: Conduct THE COURT: I think it is for overbreadth MR. RORSCHACH: Conduct MR. RORSCHACH:Your and the vagueness. cited, Ias understand which it, to ^[******] the Trial Court’s suspension its attack on the provide municipal provisions en under the firm but there is a rule which was set forth banc, city but in addition to the rule reported good long ago the record ... order’ And, amendment, describes its sufficient conduct was in conversa- “conduct Thus, order—what’s the lan- it, “perfected temperate reinstated, ruling course, conclusion guidance rights Honor, may newspaper because this case con- concerned for city prudently prejudicial appeal, that ‘conduct prejudicial not, criticism of is unconsti- as I under- ... disciplined with back and I do I infringe- consist- prohib- of the to as- that’s in its you be grounds remains times invalidated on such as place, In the first those portion judgment See, enjoined, by g., Breier, that e. asserted here. Bence v. appeal, not from enforc- which it did (7th 1974), from generally, 501 F.2d 1185 Cir. 5.3(41),3 portion of the rules ing article Doctrine, Vagueness Note 53 Tex.L.Rev. the first amendment. In most offensive to why they The reason continue therefore, case, provi- setting of this appear private seems manifest. For 5.3(41) must be viewed as sions of article disciplined can employment, one or dis- general catch-all ordi- subtracted from the any reason or for charged for almost nance, since, they if cannot be enforced reason; arrangement obtains is specific prohibition, no more can be generally employ- known. In civil-service subsumed in a one. enforced as contrast, ment, by discharge discipline Second, prohibition catch-all comes to us must rest on “cause.” Fair notice conse- standing rounding out a alone quently requires attempt specifying some lengthy specific provisions per- of more list cause, it may what actions constitute but taining proscribed categories of con- to such impossible imagine well for the mind to “insubordination,” “absent without duct every the hand to transcribe sort of or leave,” Obviously, like. it is not and the might fairly human misconduct that call for provision re-pro- catch-all intended that the discipline. possible, And if it were the general provisions in terms what other hibit par- fill volumes product would doubtless already spe- the have forbidden in rules go except therefore ticulars and unread — intended, Nor, cific if it were so can ones. perhaps by superiors searching out ad hoc weight we envision how it would add to a grounds disciplinary already for action de- specific charge: prejudi- “insubordination termined on. order,” good example, cial seems to Thus, ironically, provi- amount to no more than “insubordination.” these catch-all provision sions, (due We therefore conclude that the in so often attacked on department condemning these fire rules (first amendment) process) overbreadth “[cjonduct prejudicial good order” is grounds,6 probably give the notice that properly applying viewed as to undesirable practically effectively given can other, specifically conduct not forbidden employer impose the thinks itself entitled to specific more rules but of the same grounds that are not set out punishment on Thus, category kind. it falls in the of such They “require . particularity. with venerable punish- omnibus clauses as those im- person to conform his conduct to an ing unbecoming “conduct an and a officer precise comprehensible normative stan- gentleman,” art. 95 of the old Articles of Cincinnati, 611, dard.” Coates v. 402 U.S. 133, War (presently brought forward as art. 614, 214 91 29 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. Justice), Uniform Military Code of and art. (1971). Arnett v. example, For in Code, 134 of that punishing “disorders and 134, 1633, 416 U.S. 94 S.Ct. neglects prejudice to the order and (1974), a civil- Supreme upheld the Court ,”4 discipline . . . cause as will service dismissal for “such promote It efficiency of the service.”

As was noted in the dissent from our quoted stan- panel’s opinion,5 reasoning did so on catch-all such as persist requir- military “essentially in civil-service dard was fair” and that codes, though challenged ing greater specificity often and some- feasible “be- bases, “derogatory Despite statements-adverse criti- doctrines their different provision quoted City overlap considerably. Grayned cism” in text above. See Rockford, 2294, 104, 33 appear 4. Arts. 133 and 134 at 10 U.S.C. 933 (1972), Goguen, §§ L.Ed.2d 222 415 and Smith v. and 934. 566, 1242, (1974). U.S. 605 39 L.Ed.2d liberally 5. From which we borrow and some- literally, times without further attribution. F.2d 916. this, necessary, It is in such cases as variety of factual situ-

cause of the infinite employment analyze the character of the public statements ations in which strength govern might reasonably concerned and government employees ” regulating in the conduct of Id. at 94 mental interest justify dismissal for ‘cause.’ chosen, balanc Levy, employee 417 the in the manner And in Parker v. S.Ct. at 1648. employee as citizen ing the interests of need to control vague- against government’s (1974), sustained Court Pickering v. Board of employee. him as challenge ness art. Uniform Code of Education, 391 Justice, language contains Military here, certainly possible It is L.Ed.2d 811 to that attacked for- almost identical isolate discrete elements within anal bidding neglects prej- “disorders controlled; ysis: . size of the unit to be dis . . Were udice of order it; unit, parateness we of function within the need Irving Department military Fire discipline, job; on or off the and so on. regard Levy controlling authority, would tarry longer. analysis balancing meticulous closely point, and would Such perhaps appropriate a task more for the department is not such a But the fire us, Supreme especially Court than for par- quasi-military unit. It is at most ground plowed where new in dan is to be quality only chiefly takes even of this Here, conclude, gerous territory.10 we we duty. strongly when on relied Court spared that has task because tradition, Levy military on the context and situations, already performed it in book-end equate municipal and we are loath to a Levy Kennedy. paratrooper fireman with a or even with quasi-soldier Levy, supra, upheld such a as the recalcitrant offi- the criminal convic- cer-dermatologist Levy. Military society, military incarceration of a officer tion and all, appears inexorably pure political speech to function at to under a statute vague (disorders work itself out partly fully at least in terms of as broad and require prejudice to order and something neglects status and more in Arnett, performance supra, terms of than this ordinance. efficiency, discipline) mere as against discharge of conduct than failure like attacks the stampede upheld mere to not, carriage therefore, publicly recklessly horses. We do civil a servant regard Levy squarely charging supervisor as his with misfeasance controlling.8 Ken- however, (such nedy, provision does not concern under a even broader cause the mili- tary, efficiency and the catch-all language promote as will ser- up- there scarcely vice). relatively held could be temperate broader.9 Fireman Davis’ military-type organizational 7. See also Civil Service structure Commission v. Letter as a Carriers, practical 413 U.S. 93 S.Ct. administrative solution deserves def- (1973), upholding Johnson, 238, 246, Kelley L.Ed.2d 796 the Hatch Act’s erence. v. 425 U.S. political activity by 1440, 1445, severe restrictions (1976). on feder- 47 L.Ed.2d 708 employees against al attack on grounds, and overbreadth Broadrick v. Oklaho- language significantly 9. Nor was that limited in ma, 413 U.S. 37 L.Ed.2d 830 accompanying regu- breadth its two sets of (1973), sustaining a similar state statute lations, incorporated each of which its own against like attacks. As the in a noted provision “criminal, infamous, against catchall subsequent opinion, these trammelled activities dishonest, notoriously disgraceful immoral or “lying are ones at the core of the First Amend- conduct, prejudicial or other conduct Johnson, Kelley 238, 245, ment.” v. Government.” Arnett 141 nn. 5 and nn. 5 S.Ct. at 1638 and 6 (emphasis added). involving grooming In a case of a code county police department, New York a more — Glines, —, 10. See Brown v. ours, analogous unit Court seemed to (1980), upholding though organizations may indicate that such prior first amendment attack a restraint paramilitary not be in such a sense as to draw peti on a serviceman’s circulation on base of a support prescrip- for their codes from historical tion. tion, yet sponsors the choice their of a clearly fall notice that expressions practically effectively can germane public these;11 and, from category given employer that the thinks in a different [himself] noted, wisely authorities we have entitled to impose punishment grounds as on of whether the bring us the issue did not that are not set out with particularity.” these, ordinance, applied punish Generality proscription may be tolerable provision specific whether the infirm or However, when directed at conduct. it can- or adverse against derogatory statements not be sanctioned when it stifles freedom of facially was valid-—either or as criticism expression. In accommodating the first applied to Mr. Davis. apparent amendment to the needs of the government employer, my put brethren and or Irving But the catchall rule governmental false dilemma: if the author- condemning conduct firemen dinance discipline employees they- ities are to must cannot, in view of order adopt vague gives either a rule so that it authorities we have considered and dis employees they notice to must formulate cussed, facially always and how be held — encyclopedia particulars. an The simple Clearly it falls some applied ever —invalid. apparent answer to the is easy: riddle spectrum between Arnett and where on governmental body required is not to inhib- down, therefore, would Levy. To strike it expression it the of its employ- freedom of pow departure beyond that is our require ees; so, court, if it do then seeks to it must warn judgment of the district ers. The clearly provision what exercises of first amendment insofar as it declares enjoins rights employment unconstitutional and its en so far abuse the rela- manner, any tionship forcement in must therefore constitute cause for disci- pline. REVERSED. The statement of facts in the majority fails, opinion completely accurate. It CLARK, Judge, spe- A. Circuit THOMAS however, single impor- focus on the most concurring: cially subject: tant applies whether the ordinance I concur in the result and in most of the employee engages speech when an in reasoning majority opinion the en of banc. self-expression by other that is deemed his language panel The of the dissent superiors “prejudicial to be to order.” however, opinion,1 emphasizing very the trial, argu- At the in in oral its brief and degree small to which first amendment con- city speech ment the that can be asserts implicated posture siderations are in the of Perhaps recognition thus condemned. in of us, ex- closely the case as it reaches more major- possible phrase, reach of that presses my adopt it views. I therefore ity by ejusdem generis limits it a sort of mine. rule, specifically “undesirable conduct not other, by specific forbidden more rules but RUBIN, Judge, ALVIN B. Circuit with can, of same kind.” The of GODBOLD, KRAVITCH, whom FRANK course, prohibit revise the ordinance so as to JOHNSON, Jr., HATCHETT, M. TATE and application constitutionally protected its to JOHNSON, join, Judges, D. Circuit SAM speech, legislative body has made dissenting. effort, such the ordi- and instead defends Respectfully, we majority scope. I dissent from the nance in its full Were a state court, codes, opinion. My accept reinterpret a state brethren limitation we could so attempt bring into constitutional speech municipal on freedom of em- them line, but, court, we lack ployees by regulation consisting of a bare as a federal that Wilson, 518, 405 provision” “only power. Gooding “catch-all because it is the U.S. 11. Cf. Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated 1. 598 F.2d at 922-924. District, 410, 693, School 58 raucous, (1979) (germane, pri- if L.Ed.2d 619 expressions). vate

1106 1103, 1105, 408, speech by phrases free 520, scriptions against 413 31 L.Ed.2d obscurity. Thirty-seven (37) Delphic brevity (1972); United States v. 363, 369, Photographs, 402 91 U.S. S.Ct. 134, Kennedy, 416 In Arnett v. 822, L.Ed.2d (1974), the Court S.Ct. provision Lloyd-LaFol of the discharged punching Davis was not considered a Act, nose, provides damaging city the chief in the lette 5 U.S.C. § employee may be property driving or for a fire truck with that a federal civil service pay “only without talking suspended wild abandon. He was fired for removed or the efficien newspaper promote He now cause as will reporter. knows that for such upheld The statute ap- cy the ordinance was unconstitutional as of the service.” plied language to him. that its “excludes employees premise Other do not have on the speech, and that speeches constitutionally protected assurance that other on other subjects similarly will protected. When the statute is therefore overbroad.” considering validity L.Ed.2d of the ordinance on 416 at at face, its we only emphasized interpre must consider not whether at prohibits statute, unruly availability it actions history but whether it tative might attempt express reach an who government employees senti- counsel to approval ments do not meet with meaning seek advice on the of the act and governmental superior. important, More regulations, its and the administrative in employee terpretation must consider before he of the statute the Civil Ser speaks Commission, the possibility prin that he will “longstanding be dis- vice whose charged or disciplined gives ciples relationships, if he utterance employer-employee thoughts. sector, to his properly developed private This inhibition is like those effect, chilling characterized as a interpreting for it can should be followed in the lan hardly fail guage both to deter all but the bravest by Congress.” used Id. at expression and to limit by others to the safe 40 L.Ed.2d at 36. accepted. and the None of these buttresses supports conduct-prej udicial-to-good-order interpre- ordinance. There is no state court standard, safeguards constitutionally pro- even when Article 5.5 is narrowed tation that by eliminating speech, whatever was forbidden tected there is no counsel to advise 5.3, designed only Article is to forbid not on the ordinance and there is no administra- speech writing actual history. discharged, but also behavior tive Davis was and, hence, unemployed communicative shielded remained until he invoked the court; the first Municipal amendment. em- aid of a federal then did he ployees discharged pursuant speaking must not know that he was safe to a reporter. a scheme that wish stifles the exercise of funda- If his fellow firemen now Burns, personal liberty. espouse wages mental Elrod v. considered horrendous 2673, 347, chief, 427 U.S. 96 S.Ct. 49 L.Ed.2d 547 the have no assurance that advocacy The vice in it the ordinance is that will not be considered reaching is overbroad in first-amendment- order. conduct,

protected vague and in its defini- 733, Levy, Parker v. 417 94 U.S. S.Ct. tion of what expressive kind of conduct is 2547, (1974), great- 41 439 no L.Ed.2d lends prohibited. or is not support er to the ordinance. While the Whether such a standard is so Court held valid of the Uniform vague constitutionally ap- Military proscribing that it cannot of Justice “con- Code plied government unbecoming gentle- employees has twice duct an officer and a Supreme (10 933) been man” and disorders considered Court. U.S.C. “all § upon by neglects prejudice Both cases are cited and relied of order brethren, my (10 majority. discipline With deference to I in the armed forces” differently applied 934), them to the issue it stressed that each of these read U.S.C. § pro- us. Neither of them sanctions articles had been: before

1107 605, 1251, (1974); 39 L.Ed.2d 616 Broadrick Court by the United States construed Oklahoma, 601, 617-18, 93 v. 413 U.S. S.Ct. military au- by other Military Appeals, or 41 L.Ed.2d at 457. nomic affairs. ian applies garding that the articles of the Code is the standard that dard of review for 417 Moreover the Court stressed the “factors 751-52, differentiating military 61, thorities in such partially tary Appeals and rowed they cover. time Arts. 133 and 134 scope. thorities has been by way language of the 41 L.Ed.2d at 456. society” U.S. The effect of these military personnel were instructed re- ^[*] has to criminal statutes 94 the contents of the Code. at supplied 752, 754, ^[*] and held that narrow examples very Id. at broad reach of articles, ^[*] 2559, a manner as considerable vagueness challenge 94 S.Ct. by the Court of Mili- its otherwise twofold: 756, of the conduct society other 41 L.Ed.2d at 455. ^[*] 94 S.Ct. at constructions of regulating at proper military at the It has nar- ^[*] 2560, from to at least specificity the literal also noted Id. at 2560- broad 2562, stan- same ^[*] civil- eco- au- tion.” Arnett v. power tional idle and the insolent. service. Governmental authority administrative units must be 2908, 2897-98, ion has all insubordination or necessary management. Policy makers Cir. Peterson, sion v. National Association of (1973) nance and 1298 ers, Bence 1973). S.Ct. Law — This dissent vague.2 413 1974), (1975). Certainly, 804, ; Vagueness goals. Administrators must have v. 2918-19, to direct work and to conduct See United States Civil Service Breier, U.S. 37 L.Ed.2d to define and regulation 495 F.2d cert. ... generally done 548, 579-80, is not an indorsement of which will result in retalia- 501 37 L.Ed.2d denied, Doctrine, anarchy so. Therefore the ordi F.2d are 91, “[I]t Note, 796, as well as spell 419 1185, 1188-92 (7th (1975); accomplish 99-100 is not feasible or 816-17 93 S.Ct. majority opin 53 Tex.L.Rev. 416 must have the Constitutional governmental U.S. discipline responsive to out in detail Letter 830, overbroad Waters (D.C.Cir. Commis 1121, private 843-44 (1973); Carri func- 2880, 134, 95 v. None of the the Arnett factors 40 L.Ed.2d opinions providing Parker mentioned (1974) (quoting Macy, Meehan v. 392 F.2d are guidance such limitation or found here. rehearing, (D.C.Cir.), modified on limiting regulations; There are no there is banc, (1968), en 425 F.2d 425 F.2d 469 aff’d doctrine; body there is no office for However, (1969)). certain minimum interpretative guidance; applies the rule required. guidelines standards or See department employees fire rather than mili- Goguen, Smith judicial tary personnel,1 and no construction (1974). Management regulation of the ordinance and can elimi- prerogatives can be defined in a manner provide responsibil- nate their and also overbreadth that makes clear the duties and requisite degree clarity. public employees yet protects See Smith v. ities of 566, 580-81, Goguen, rights their as citizens.3 In an industrial military analogy rejected process grounding has been with trine from the due Breier, respect police departments. Bence v. doctrine. (7th 1974), F.2d 1185 Cir. cert. denied 419 (1975); required degree specificity of such Conlisk, (7th Muller v. 429 F.2d Cir. regulations may depend on the nature of the 1970). departments Fire are also not analo large, heterogeneous employees If covered. gous military. to the involved, group employees as in such Arnett, employees most federal were where pause 2. We need not here to define the differ- subject regulations question, less See, g., ences between these defects. e. Coates small, may specificity than for a be feasible Cincinnati, City of v. employees homogeneous group such as mu- (1971), distinguishing Note, firefighters. generally nicipal Consti- See first amendment basis of the overbreadth doc- penal- discharge suspension

society, many levied for those than

ties more severe offenses; be left they cannot

criminal particularly supervisor, caprice of taken, as it was may be action

when by the protected

Davis, for communication amendment.4

first Plaintiff-Appellee, HALL,

Herbert CO., AND SURETY

AETNA CASUALTY al., Defendants-Appellants,

etc. et Company,

Employers National Insurance

Intervenor-Appellee.

No. 78-1880. Appeals, Court of

United States

Fifth Circuit.

May Doctrine, constitutional Vagueness wrestle with a Tex.L. circuit courts tutional Law — opinions problem present a full in their Rev. 1298 thought appropriate range precedent unwillingness diffi- to face 4. We cannot excuse resolution, highest court is not its cult, unfamiliar, the Su- issues because even problem position to consider all facets yet preme them. Certio- Court has not reached disposition. and reach an informed principally conflicts rari review is reserved among courts. Until of decision the circuit

Case Details

Case Name: Robert Michael Davis v. Lewis Williams

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: May 19, 1980

Citation: 617 F.2d 1100

Docket Number: 77-1299

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.