BROOKS TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that an appeal from a contempt conviction is moot once the fine has been paid and the sentence fully executed.
Appellant, an attorney, was fined $500 for contempt of court for failing to appear as counsel. He paid the fine and appealed.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Advisory Opinion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
On June 16, 1967, the appellant, a practicing attorney, was fined $500.00 by the District Court upon adjudication of guilty of contempt of court for failure to appear as counsel in a scheduled criminal trial after being retained as counsel. The sentence provided that in lieu of payment of the fine the respondent stand committed for a period of five days.
The appellant paid the $500.00 fine in question to the Clerk on the date the fine was imposed. On July 17, 1967, he filed his notice of appeal to this Court.1
Pointing out that the sentence of the court was fully executed by the payment of the fine, the appellee has moved for a dismissal of the appeal as moot. We find that the appellee’s motion is well taken. We have no power to decide moot questions and we cannot give advisory opinions which cannot in any way affect the rights of litigants. We therefore do not reach the merits of this controversy. The controlling cases are St. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41, 63 S.Ct. 910, 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943); Murrell v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 253 F. 2d 267, cert. den. 358 U.S. 841, 79 S.Ct. 65, 3 L.Ed.2d 76; Tessmer v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 328 F. 2d 306, 307; United States v. Lee, 5 Cir., 404 F. 2d 68 [November 15, 1968].
The appeal is
Dismissed.
. Under Rule 18 of this Court, the Court has placed this case on the Summary-Calendar for disposition without oral argument. See Murphy v. Houma Well Service, 5th Cir. 1969, 409 F. 2d 804, Part I [March 11, 1969].
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Murray Stewart, 571 F.2d 958 (5th Cir. 1978)
-
NEW Left Education Project v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. OF Tex. Sys., 472 F.2d 218 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
United States v. Camil, 497 F.2d 225 (5th Cir. 1974)
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Murphy v. Houma Well Serv., 409 F.2d 804 (5th Cir. 1969)
- ST. Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 (U.S. 1943)
- O'Rourke v. Sill, 358 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1958)
- Neeman (formerly Dodge) v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 358 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1958)
- Tessmer v. United States, 328 F.2d 306 (5th Cir. 1964)
- Murrell v. United States, 253 F.2d 267 (5th Cir. 1958)
- Est. OF A. P. Steckel v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 253 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1958)
- United States v. LEE, 404 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1968)
- Farley v. United States, 404 F.2d 68 (5th Cir. 1968)