# Eloise Ingraham, as Next Friend, Etc. v. Willie J. Wright, I, Individually, Etc.

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · January 8, 1976 · 525 F.2d 909

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462263

## Case

- **Full name:** Eloise INGRAHAM, as Next Friend, Etc., Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Willie J. WRIGHT, I, Individually, Etc., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** January 8, 1976
- **Citations:** 525 F.2d 909; 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 13462
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Godbold
- **Judges:** Brown, Rives, Gewin, Bell, Thornberry, Coleman, Goldberg, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Simpson, Morgan, Clark, Roney, Gee
- **Cited by:** 63 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/9462263

## Opinion text

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge, with whom BROWN, Chief Judge,
joins (dissenting):
I agree with Judge Rives that arbitrary and excessive corporal punishment is a denial of substantive due process, although I am not convinced that the punishment in this case rose to the level of such a violation. I, therefore, disagree with the majority’s statement that it would be an abuse of our judicial power to determine whether punishment inflicted in a particular case exceeds constitutional limits. This is a mere rule of convenience, made palatable by characterizing the issue as the difference between five and ten licks. I doubt that the majority really means what it says, and I suspect that if in a future case the punishment inflicted has broken the vic *921 tim’s leg we will face the issue and hold that substantive due process has been violated.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462263. Public record. Not legal advice.