State of Texas & Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr. v. James Edward Graves, 352 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1965). · Go Syfert
Search
State of Texas & Dr. George J. Beto, Dir., Texas Dep't of Corr. v. James Edward Graves, 352 F.2d 514 (5th Cir. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“the vague and indefinite description of the purported class depends upon the state of mind of a particular individual, rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether any given individual is within or without the alleged class.”
33 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Pat Hardy, Denise Johnson-Harper and Horseshoe Lake Property Owners Association v. Robert L. Wise (texapp, 2002-12-19)
Treatment trajectory · 1966 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1966 1996 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) Pat Hardy, Denise Johnson-Harper and Horseshoe Lake Property Owners Association v. Robert L. Wise
Tex. App. · 2002 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
the vague and indefinite description of the purported class depends upon the state of mind of a particular individual, rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether any given individual is within or without the alleged class.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thomas D. Arthur v. Michael Haley, Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
11th Cir. · 2001 · confidence medium
Under that provision, this circuit held "that it is not necessary for a state or its representative to obtain a [CPC] in order to take an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a final order granting a writ.” State v. Graves, 352 F.2d 514, 515 (5th Cir.1965) (per curiam).
discussed Cited "see" Gevedon v. Pharma
E.D. Ky. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Chaffee v. Johnson, 229 F.Supp. 445, 448 (S.D.Miss. 1964), aff'd, 352 F.2d 514 (5th Cir.1965), cert. den. 384 U.S. 956 , 86 S.Ct. 1582 , 16 L.Ed.2d 553 (1966) (“The members of a class must be capable of definite identification as being either in or out of it.”); Roman v. ESB, Inc., 550 F.2d 1343, 1348 (4th Cir.1976) (In order to determine whether a class action is proper, the district court must determine whether a class exists and, if so, what it includes.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Hardy v. Wise
Tex. App. · 2002 · signal: see also · confidence low
Miller, & Mary Kay Kanf., Federal Practice and Procedure § 1760 (2d ed.1986); see also Chaffee v. Johnson, 229 F.Supp. 445, 448 (S.D.Miss. 1964) aff'd by 352 F.2d 514 (5th Cir.1965) (“The vague and indefinite description of the purported class depends upon the state of mind of a particular individual, rendering it difficult, if not impossible, to determine whether any given individual is within or without the alleged class.”). 1 The record demonstrates the lot owners cannot readily be divided into those favoring and those opposed to the Association’s claims.
cited Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Joseph Thomas Pearce
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence medium
See, e.g., State of Texas v. Graves, 352 F.2d 514, 515 (5th Cir.1965); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States v. Pearce
10th Cir. · 1998 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., State of Texas v. Graves, 3 The prior version of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 stated in relevant part that “[a]n appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding where the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court, unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.” -4- 352 F.2d 514 , 515 (5th Cir. 1965); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
STATE OF TEXAS and Dr. George J. Beto, Director, Texas Department of Corrections, Appellants,
v.
James Edward GRAVES, Appellee
23100.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Nov 3, 1965.
352 F.2d 514
Sam R. Wilson, Houston, Tex., for appellants.
Maris, Rives, Bell.
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 84%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of Texas (1)
PER CURIAM:

In this habeas corpus proceeding the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a state court. The district court granted the writ of habeas corpus and denied the motion of the appellants for a certificate of probable cause, under section 2253 of Title 28 U.S. Code. The appellants now move this Court to issue a certificate of probable cause to allow them to appeal the decision of the district court granting the writ of habeas corpus.

We are of the opinion that it is not necessary for a state or its representative to obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to take an appeal to the Court of Appeals from a final order granting a writ of habeas corpus to a prisoner detained under process issued by a state court. While the literal reading of section 2253 seems to so indicate, the well-considered case of United States ex rel. Tillery v. Cavell, 3 Cir. 1960, 294 F.2d 12, holds that the issuance of a certificate of probable cause to a state or its representative is not essential. That case was followed by the Sixth Circuit in Buder v. Bell, 6 Cir. 1962, 306 F.2d 71, and by the Seventh Circuit in United States ex rel. Calhoun v. Pate, 1965, 341 F.2d 885. The Second Circuit in United States ex rel. Carrol v. Lavallee, 1965, 342 F.2d 641, recognized the Tillery case as “most convincing authority * * * that States and penitentiary wardens are not required to get the certificate in order to obtain a review of a grant of the writ in favor of an incarcerated prisoner * * *.”

Accordingly, the appeal may be proseuted without issuance of probable cause.