# Dunagin v. City of Oxford

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 31, 1983 · 718 F.2d 738

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917790

## Case

- **Full name:** Kathy DUNAGIN v. The CITY OF OXFORD, MISSISSIPPI, The State of Mississippi, Intervenor-Appellee LAMAR OUTDOOR ADVERTISING, INC. v. MISSISSIPPI STATE TAX COMMISSION
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 31, 1983
- **Citations:** 718 F.2d 738; 10 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1001
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Gee
- **Judges:** Botham, Brown, Clark, Garwood, Gee, Goldberg, Higgin, Higginbotham, Johnson, Jolly, Politz, Randall, Reavley, Tate, Williams
- **Cited by:** 62 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917790

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, “... parties cannot insist on strict scrutiny merely by asserting a First Amendment right that the court ultimately finds not to be violated,” and noting that, “.. in all cases commercial speech is entitled to only a limited measure of protection under a diffe…
- stating that A[i]n this case we have held the Mississippi law entirely legal under the First Amendment, and parties cannot insist on strict scrutiny merely by asserting a First Amendment right that the court ultimately finds not to be violated@
- stating that “[i]n this case we have held the Mississippi law entirely legal under the First Amendment, and parties cannot insist on strict scrutiny merely by asserting a First Amendment right that the court ultimately finds not to be violated”
- noting that a higher court cannot be bound by two expert witnesses called by the parties and the “findings” of a trial judge

## Opinion text

GEE, Circuit Judge,
with whom
GOLDBERG, POLITZ, RANDALL and HIGGIN-BOTHAM, Circuit Judges, join, dissenting:
Judge Reavley’s opinion for a majority of the court — workmanlike and thorough as always — takes a view of the Mississippi arrangement regulating liquor advertising with which it is hard to disagree violently. Even so, I believe that the better one is expressed in our panel opinions, reported at 701 F.2d 314 and 335. Since it is there set out in great detail, I see no occasion to write further.
For the reasons there expressed, then, I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8917790. Public record. Not legal advice.