Angelo Joseph Pavone v. Louisiana State Bd. of Barbers Examiners, 505 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Angelo Joseph Pavone v. Louisiana State Bd. of Barbers Examiners, 505 F.2d 1022 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Christiaan's, Inc. v. Chobanian, 373 A.2d 160 (R.I. 1977)
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1023 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Christiaan's, Inc. v. Chobanian, 373 A.2d 160 (R.I. 1977).published
    Authorities elsewhere, with but a single exception, have ruled that legislation similar to §§5-10-1 (a) and (h), whether analyzed in equal (protection or due process terms, does not pass constitutional muster. 2 Indeed, one court went so f…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Angelo Joseph PAVONE Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
LOUISIANA STATE BOARD OF BARBERS EXAMINERS Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
74-1456.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Dec 30, 1974.
Published opinion
505 F.2d 1022
1974 U.S. App. LEXIS 5431
C. Paul Barker, William J. Rein, III, New Orleans, La., William J. Guste, Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, La., for defendants-appellants., Joseph Neves Marcal, III, New Orleans, La., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Tuttle, Wisdom, Goldberg.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM;

The only question we need decide in this ease is whether it needed to be heard initially by a statutory three-judge court. It appears that the trial court requested the appointment of a three-judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2281, but that the Chief Judge of this court denied the request.

It is now well-settled law that a three-judge court need not be convened if the constitutional defense raised in the case is frivolous in that “previous decisions of [the Supreme Court of the United States] * * * foreclose the subject and leave no room for the inference that the question sought to be raised can be the subject of controversy.” Ex parte Poresky, 290 U.S. 30, 32, 54 S.Ct. 3, 4, 78 L.Ed. 152 (1933); Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518, 93 S.Ct. 854, 35 L.Ed.2d 36 (1973); Sands v. Wainwright, en banc, 491 F.2d 417, 423 (5th Cir. 1973); Fonseca v. Hildago County Water Improvement District, 496 F.2d 109, 112 (5th Cir. 1974).

The test is squarely met in this appeal. The statute challenged by these plaintiffs restricted “cosmetologists” to cutting the hair of females and forbade them from cutting the hair of males. The statute is so patently unconstitutional as not to present a substantial constitutional question. Bolton v. Texas Board of Barber Examiners, 350 F.Supp. 494 (N.D.Tex.1972), affirmed memorandum, 409 U.S. 807, 93 S.Ct. 52, 34 L.Ed.2d 68 (1972). The ease was thus properly tried by a single judge, whose opinion, reported at 364 F.Supp. 961, we adopt as the opinion of this court on the merits.

Affirmed.