Case Name: FW/PBS, INC., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees; John Randall DUMAS d/b/a Geno's, Plaintiff, Tempo Tamers, Inc., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., Defendant-Appellee; Calvin BERRY, III, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1990-02-28
Citations: 896 F.2d 864
Docket Number: No. 86-1723
Parties: FW/PBS, INC., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. John Randall DUMAS d/b/a Geno’s, Plaintiff, Tempo Tamers, Inc., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., Defendant-Appellee. Calvin BERRY, III, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before THORNBERRY, GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 896
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
FW/PBS, INC., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees. John Randall DUMAS d/b/a Geno’s, Plaintiff, Tempo Tamers, Inc., Etc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., Defendant-Appellee. Calvin BERRY, III, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF DALLAS, Etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 86-1723.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 28, 1990.
Malcolm Dade, Dallas, Tex., for FW/PBS.
Arthur M. Schwartz, Denver, Colo., for FW/PBS, et al.
Frank P. Hernandez, Dallas, Tex., for Calvin Berry, III, et al.
Richard L. Wilson, Orlando, Fla., for Tamers, et al.
David LaBrec, Office of the City Atty., Yol Villasana, Mark O’Briant, Tom Brandt, Dallas, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Bruce A. Taylor, Phoenix, Ariz., for ami-cus — Citizens for Decency Through Law, Inc.
Before THORNBERRY, GARWOOD and HIGGINBOTHAM, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
PER CURIAM:
Our decision affirming the district court has been affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part by the United States Supreme Court and remanded to this court. - U.S. -, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603. We remand the case to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the ruling of the United States Supreme Court.