# Henry Lee Bryan v. Clarence Jones, Sheriff, Henry Wade, District Attorney, Fidelity & Deposit Co.& Lena Giddens

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · April 30, 1976 · 530 F.2d 1210

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462504

## Case

- **Full name:** Henry Lee BRYAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clarence JONES, Sheriff, Henry Wade, District Attorney, Fidelity & Deposit Co. & Lena Giddens, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 30, 1976
- **Citations:** 530 F.2d 1210; 1976 U.S. App. LEXIS 11537
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Gewin
- **Judges:** Gewin, Thornber-Ry, Gee, Wisdom, Clark, Goldberg, God-Bold, Brown, Bell, Thornberry, Coleman, Ainsworth, Godbold, Dyer, Morgan, Roney, Tjoflat
- **Cited by:** 78 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/9462504

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that subsequent decisions “cast considerable doubt on the wisdom or continued vitality of [Whirl].”

## Opinion text

GEWIN, Circuit Judge, with whom THORNBERRY, Circuit Judge,
joins, specially concurring:
I concur in the reasoning and the result of the majority en banc opinion with one exception. I do not approve the criticism of our opinion in Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781 (5th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 901 , 90 S.Ct. 210 , 24 L.Ed.2d 177 (1969). In my judgment that case is distinguishable, factually, procedurally and substantively from the case sub judice.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462504. Public record. Not legal advice.