Case Name: Joe BENHAM, Terry E. Anthony and Woodrow Biddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe EDWARDS and John R. Branning, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1983-11-03
Citations: 719 F.2d 772
Docket Number: No. 80-9052
Parties: Joe BENHAM, Terry E. Anthony and Woodrow Biddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe EDWARDS and John R. Branning, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: Before RONEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 719
Pages: 772–772

Head Matter:
Joe BENHAM, Terry E. Anthony and Woodrow Biddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Joe EDWARDS and John R. Branning, individually and in their official capacities, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 80-9052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit. Unit B
Nov. 3, 1983.
Carol Atha Cosgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellants.
Robert B. Remar, Phyllis J. Holmen, Douglasville, Ga., Howard Sokol, Milledgeville, Ga., Kay Giese, Dalton, Ga., for plaintiffs-appellees.
Former Fifth Circuit case, Section 9(1) of Public Law 96-452 October 14, 1980.

Opinion:
ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Before RONEY and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment heretofore entered in this case, 678 F.2d 511, having been vacated by the Supreme Court, - U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3565, 77 L.Ed.2d 1406, and the case having been remanded to this court for further consideration in light of Jones v. United States, 463 U.S. -, 103 S.Ct. 3043, 77 L.Ed.2d 694 (1983), and the parties' post-remand briefs having been considered, the case is now REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings not inconsistent with the decision and opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones v. United States.