Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1979). · Go Syfert
Search
Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1979). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (4 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Hunt v. Roth (ca8, 1981-05-13)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Hunt v. Roth (2×)
8th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
XI, reprinted in Schwartz at 132, 141 .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Eugene L. Hunt v. Richard Roth, Sheriff of Douglas County, Nebraska and Joseph Vitek, Warden, Douglas County Corrections Center, and Director, Douglas County Department of Corrections, Eugene L. Hunt v. James M. Murphy, District Judge of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Nebraska, Douglas County, Nebraska (2×)
4th Cir. · 1981 · confidence medium
XI, reprinted in Schwartz at 132, 141 .
discussed Cited "see" Woodyard v. Baldwin County Sheriff's Department
S.D. Ala. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 , 783–84 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (“At oral argument, all parties admitted that since the district court's action, Ms. Powers has been tried on and convicted of the charges that precipitated this [habeas] action.
discussed Cited "see" Edwards v. Hetrick
S.D. Ala. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 , 783– 84 (5th Cir. 1979) (per curiam) (“At oral argument, all parties admitted that since the district court's action, Ms. Powers has been tried on and convicted of the charges that precipitated this [habeas] action.
cited Cited "see" Bertrand v. Sava
S.D.N.Y. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See Powers v. Schwartz, 448 F.Supp. 54, 57-8 (S.D.Fla.1978), vacated and remanded as moot, 587 F.2d 783 (5th Cir. 1979); United States ex rel.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Seagle v. The City Hueytown, Alabama
N.D. Ala. · 2025 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See e.g., Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 , 783– 84 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that the case was moot once the plaintiff was “no longer a pretrial detainee; [and] has not shown a reasonable probability that she will again acquire that status in the future”); (see Doc. 1, p. 14, ¶ 47).5 A federal court may not “give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.” Gagliardi v. TJCV Land Tr., 889 F.3d 728, 733 (11th Cir. 2018).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Barber v. Moran
D.R.I. · 1991 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Powers v. Schwartz, 587 F.2d 783 (11th Cir.1979) (denial of pretrial bail rendered moot by subsequent conviction); Zide v. State of Florida, 410 F.2d 394 (5th Cir.1969) (denial of bail pending appeal rendered moot by dismissal).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Griffith v. State (2×)
Alaska Ct. App. · 1982 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Powers v. Schwartz, 448 F. Supp. 54, 56 (S.D.Fla. 1978), vacated as moot, 587 F.2d 783 (1976); United States ex rel.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kimberly Ann Powers
v.
Honorable Alan Schwartz, as Judge of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida and Jack Sandstrom, Director of Dade County Dept. Of Correction and Rehabilitation
78-1636.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 12, 1979.
587 F.2d 783
Cited by 3 opinions  |  Published

587 F.2d 783

Kimberly Ann POWERS, Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
Honorable Alan SCHWARTZ, as Judge of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit of Florida and Jack Sandstrom, Director of
Dade County Dept. of Correction and
Rehabilitation, Respondents-Appellants.

No. 78-1636.

United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.

Jan. 12, 1979.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Janet Reno, State's Atty., Paul M. Rashkind, Stephen V. Rosin, Asst. State's Attys., Miami, Fla., Charles A. Stampelos, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents-appellants.

Sheldon "Skip" Taylor, Miami, Fla., for petitioner-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Before THORNBERRY, AINSWORTH and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellee Powers seeks habeas corpus relief from her detention by appellants. She claims that Florida's method of determining whether to grant pretrial bail to persons accused of crimes punishable by life imprisonment is unconstitutional. The district court agreed with appellee's claims and granted her bail. 448 F.Supp. 54 (S.D.Fla.1978).

2

At oral argument, all parties admitted that since the district court's action, Ms. Powers has been tried on and convicted of the charges that precipitated this action. Ms. Powers is therefore no longer a pretrial detainee; she has not shown a reasonable probability that she will again acquire that status in the future; and this is not a class action. The case is therefore moot. Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S.Ct. 347, 46 L.Ed.2d 350 (1975).

3

Because this is not a class action, such as Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975), it is irrelevant that other defendants may suffer the deprivation about which appellee complains. Weinstein, supra. This court's inability to consider moot claims is based on the fundamental Article III requirement that the particular parties before the court have "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions." Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204, 82 S.Ct. 691, 703, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). Because Ms. Powers no longer has the requisite personal interest, this court cannot consider her claims.

4

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case REMANDED to that court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.