Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CITY OF MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, Kenneth R. Harrison, President, and the Miami Police Benevolent Association, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1981-12-03
Citations: 664 F.2d 435
Docket Number: No. 77-1856
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CITY OF MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, Kenneth R. Harrison, President, and the Miami Police Benevolent Association, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, BROWN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCH-ETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAMUEL D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 664
Pages: 435–463

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, et al., Defendants-Appellees, v. FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE, CITY OF MIAMI LODGE NO. 20, Kenneth R. Harrison, President, and the Miami Police Benevolent Association, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 77-1856.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Dec. 3, 1981.
Pelzner, Schwedock, Finkelstein & Klausner, Robert ,D. Klausner, Miami, Fla., for defendants-appellants.
Brian K. Landsberg, Mildred M. Matesich, U. S. Dept, of Justice, Civ. Rights Div., Griffin B. Bell, U. S. Atty. Gen., Washington, D. C., Drew S. Days, III, U. S. Atty., Miami, Fla., David L. Rose, Squire Padgett, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., for the U. S.
George F. Knox, Jr., Miami, Fla., for City of Miami, Fla.
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, BROWN, AINSWORTH, CHARLES CLARK, RONEY, GEE, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, RUBIN, VANCE, KRAVITCH, FRANK M. JOHNSON, Jr., GARZA, HENDERSON, REAVLEY, POLITZ, HATCH-ETT, ANDERSON, RANDALL, TATE, SAMUEL D. JOHNSON, THOMAS A. CLARK, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Former Fifth Circuit case, Section 9(1) of Public Law 96-452 — October 14, 1980.
Judge James P. Coleman and Judge Will L. Garwood did not participate in this decision.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
The en banc court has been unable to arrive at a majority consensus as to reasoning and result in this case. Those concurring in the opinion prepared by Judge Gee would, for the reasons stated there, grant broader relief to the Appellant Fraternal Order of Police and a wider remand than would those concurring in the opinion prepared by Judge Rubin. Since all concurring in either opinion referred to agree, however, that at least the relief mandated by Judge Rubin's opinion should be granted, and since no majority exists to grant broader relief, it is that mandate which becomes the order of the court by which the district court should be guided on the remand that we direct. Those concurring only in Judge Gee's opinion dissent from the failure of the court's mandate to reverse and remand more broadly. Separate opinions follow.
AFFIRMED IN PART and IN PART VACATED AND REMANDED.