Filed: May 19, 1994
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 92-5208 & 93-4090 _ BILLY J. HALE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARL TOWNLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. BILLY J. HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CARL TOWNLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana - Opinion on Reconsideration (May 13, 1994) Before REAVLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.* PER CURIAM: This court has noted, sua spo
Summary: IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Nos. 92-5208 & 93-4090 _ BILLY J. HALE, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CARL TOWNLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellants. BILLY J. HALE, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. CARL TOWNLEY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. - Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana - Opinion on Reconsideration (May 13, 1994) Before REAVLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District Judge.* PER CURIAM: This court has noted, sua spon..
More
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_________________________________
Nos. 92-5208 & 93-4090
________________________________
BILLY J. HALE,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
CARL TOWNLEY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
BILLY J. HALE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
vs.
CARL TOWNLEY, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion on Reconsideration
(May 13, 1994)
Before REAVLEY and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and ROSENTHAL, District
Judge.*
PER CURIAM:
This court has noted, sua sponte, that a footnote in
the opinion issued on May 3, 1994 conflicts with an opinion
issued by another panel of this court dated April 29, 1994.
Footnote 1 of this court's opinion stated that the application of
*
District Judge of the Southern District of Texas, sitting by
designation.
Hudson v. McMillian, --- U.S. ---,
112 S. Ct. 995,
117 L. Ed. 2d
156 (1992), to Fourth Amendment claims was undecided in the Fifth
Circuit. In Harper v. Harris County, Texas, CA No. 93-2062,
another panel of this court held that "[a] plaintiff is no longer
required to prove significant injury to assert a section 1983
Fourth Amendment excessive force claim." This court strikes
footnote 1 from its earlier opinion. This court's opinion
remains otherwise unchanged.
2