green
Positive treatment
3.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Peter Monsanto
(2×)
See Costello v. Wainwright, 553 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1977) (per curiam) (in banc) (implying that where in banc decision of a circuit court is reversed by the Supreme Court, original panel opinion can be reinstated as good circuit law only by explicit determination to that effect by in banc court.) Accordingly, in view of the uncertain status of Monsanto I, and in light of subsequent developments in Monsanto II, Monsanto III and this opinion, we deem it appropriate explicitly to vacate the panel opinion in Monsanto I.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Anthony Swain v. Daniel Junior
In the same way, this Court has held that state-imposed budget limitations “will not excuse the failure of correctional systems to maintain a certain minimum level of medical service necessary to avoid the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment.” Harris v. Thigpen, 941 F.2d 1495, 1509 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Costello v. Wainwright, 525 F.2d 1239, 1252 (5th Cir. 1976) (“[T]he obligation of [prison officials] to eliminate unconstitutionalities does not depend upon what the Legislature may do . . . .” (quotation marks omitted)), vacated in part on reh’g, 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 19…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Curran v. Portland Superintending School Committee
Compare Davis v. Passman, 5 Cir., 544 F.2d 865, 872-76 , petition for rehearing granted, 553 F.2d 506 (5th Cir. 1977).
Michael
v.
COSTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Defendant-Appellant
v.
COSTELLO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Defendant-Appellant
75-2392.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
May 31, 1977.
Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Raymond W. Gearey, Atty. for Fla. Div. of Corrections, John A. Barley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Dept, of Legal Affairs, Civ. Div., William C. Sherrill, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendant-appellant., Tobias Simon, Miami, Fla. (court-appointed not under Act), Jack Greenberg, New York City, for plaintiff-appellee., Brian K. Landsberg, William C. Graves, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for amicus curiae.
Brown, Tuttle, Thornberry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Morgan, Clark, Roney, Gee, Tjoflat, Hill, Fay.
Cited by 4 opinions | Published
PER CURIAM:
The United States Supreme Court reversed the decision of this Court reported at 539 F.2d 547 (5th Cir. 1976), and remanded the case to this Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion in Costello v. Wainwright, - U.S. -, 97 S.Ct. 1191, 51 L.Ed.2d 372 (1977). The case was taken en bane for consideration of the three-judge court issue. The Court does not regard the remaining issues in the case to be enbancworthy. Therefore, the Court reinstates the panel opinion reported at 525 F.2d 1239 (5th Cir. 1976) as the decision in this case, and orders that the mandate be issued forthwith.