# Reliable Consultants, Inc. v. Earle

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 1, 2008 · 538 F.3d 355

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414993

## Case

- **Full name:** RELIABLE CONSULTANTS, INC., Doing Business as Dreamer’s and Le Rouge Boutique, Plaintiff-Appellant, PHE, Inc., Doing Business as Adam and Eve, Inc., Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Ronnie EARLE, in His Official Capacity Only, Travis County District Attorney, Defendant-Appellee, State of Texas, Intervenor-Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 1, 2008
- **Citations:** 538 F.3d 355; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 16434; 2008 WL 2941355
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Elrod
- **Judges:** Garza, Elrod, Reayley, Barksdale, Prado
- **Cited by:** 0 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/9414993

## Opinion text

ELROD, Circuit Judge,
dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc:
For two reasons, I agree with Chief Judge Jones and Judge Garza that the Reliable opinion merited the court’s reconsideration en banc. First, the opinion was not compelled by Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , 123 S.Ct. 2472 , 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003), yet overruled sub silentio this court’s prior controlling precedent, Red Bluff Drive-In, Inc. v. Vance, a decision that held constitutional the same statute at issue in this case. 648 F.2d 1020 , 1026-28 (5th Cir.1981). Consequently, the opinion runs afoul of our rule that “one panel of this court cannot overrule the decision of another panel; such panel decisions may be overruled only by a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or by the Fifth Circuit sitting en banc.” Lowrey v. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys., 117 F.3d 242 , 247 (5th Cir.1997). Second, the opinion creates a circuit split. See Williams v. Att’y Gen. of Ala., 378 F.3d 1232, 1236-38, 1250 (11th Cir.2004) (affirming constitutionality of Alabama sexual devices statute because Lawrence did not reach “the commercial distribution of sex toys”). I respectfully dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9414993. Public record. Not legal advice.