TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Brooks Taylor v. United States

Brooks TAYLOR, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee

Taylor v. United States, 410 F.2d 392 (5th Cir. 1969)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
April 4, 1969
Docket
No. 25392
Judges
Coleman, Per Curiam, Simpson, Wisdom
Citations
410 F.2d 3921969 U.S. App. LEXIS 12964

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM:

On June 16, 1967, the appellant, a practicing attorney, was fined $500.00 by the District Court upon adjudication of guilty of contempt of court for failure to appear as counsel in a scheduled criminal trial after being retained as counsel. The sentence provided that in lieu of payment of the fine the respondent stand committed for a period of five days.

The appellant paid the $500.00 fine in question to the Clerk on the date the fine was imposed. On July 17, 1967, he filed his notice of appeal to this Court.

1

Pointing out that the sentence of the court was fully executed by the payment of the fine, the appellee has moved for a dismissal of the appeal as moot. We find that the appellee’s motion is well taken. We have no power to decide moot questions and we cannot give advisory opinions which cannot in any way affect the rights of litigants. We therefore do not reach the merits of this controversy. The controlling cases are St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 , 63 S.Ct. 910 , 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943); Murrell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 253 F.2d 267 , cert. den. 358 U.S. 841 , 79 S.Ct. 65 , 3 L.Ed.2d 76 ; Tessmer v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 328 F.2d 306, 307 ; United States v. Lee, 5 Cir., 404 F.2d 68 [November 15, 1968].

The appeal is Dismissed.

1

. Under Rule 18 of this Court, the Court has placed this case on the Summary-Calendar for disposition without oral argument.

See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F.2d 804 , Part I [March 11, 1969].

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1972: 21973: 11974: 21978: 11988: 12016: 119722026peak 1972 · 2

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 (1943) 251
Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., & Eva C. Fontenot, 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969) 443
W. O. Murrell, Sr. v. United States, 253 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1958) 9
Tessmer v. United States, 328 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1964) 8

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list