Court Opinion

ID: 9479546
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 07:21:14.841306+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:47:06.457402
License: Public Domain

ANDERSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
There is case law indicating that a vacated decision has no precedential value. However, I suggest that the purposes and values underlying the doctrine of stare de-cisis are implicated in the instant context— i.e., where an in banc decision of a court of appeals is vacated by the Supreme Court “for reconsideration in light of” a case which is entirely unrelated to the issue as to which precedential value is implicated. Thus, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s refusal to take into consideration stare decisis values. In other words, while I acknowledge that our previous in banc decision on the abuse of the writ issue is *1529not binding, I nevertheless submit that stare decisis values should have been taken into account in our present decision. For this reason, I agree with much of what is said in Part I of Judge Kravitch’s opinion and Part I of Judge Johnson’s opinion.
I join in all of Part II (Applying Teague to Moore’s Petition) of Judge Kravitch’s opinion, except footnote 5. I join in full Part III (Abuse of the Writ) of Judge Kravitch’s opinion.
With respect to Judge Johnson’s opinion, I join Part II.A. (Waiver); Part II.B. (Re-troactivity of Teague); Part II.C.l. (Gardner); Part II.C.2. {Proffitt)-, Part III.A. {Proffitt)-, and Part III.C. {Gardner).
CLARK, Circuit Judge, joins in Judge KRAVITCH’S dissent and in Judge JOHNSON’S dissent except as to Part II.A. (Waiver), Part II.C.3 {Smith) and Part III.B (Estelle v. Smith).