noting the established rule in civil cases "that formal objection is not necessary if the trial judge was fairly apprised of the nature of the objection"
How later courts described this case
- noting the established rule in civil cases "that formal objection is not necessary if the trial judge was fairly apprised of the nature of the objection"
- “We will not reverse for an alleged error in the jury instructions if we find, based upon the record, that the challenged instruction could not have affected the outcome of the case.”
- Garwood, Circuit Judge, concurring
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
GARWOOD, Circuit Judge,
Concurring:
I concur generally in Judge Williams’ cogent opinion. I add these remarks only to state my understanding that we merely assume that, but do not determine whether, Bass’ allegations sufficed to state a claim under the theory of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 , 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), on which he sought to ground his suit. The only constitutional rights, procedural or substantive, claimed by Bass are those under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment. Equal protection, First Amendment and other constitutional claims are not presented. Bass’ due process claim rests on the assertion of a property interest, and it appears that no liberty interest is implicated. Considering our decision in McCachren v. United States Department of Agriculture, 599 F.2d 655 (5th Cir.1979), the nature of the federal programs involved and the substantial discretion committed to those administering them, there is certainly a serious question whether Bass alleged any character of property interest. However, McCachren was not cited by either party to the court below, or to us, and counsel for the defendants informed us at oral argument that he was unaware of it. Accordingly, and in light of our affirmance, it is not inappropriate to pretermit consideration of this aspect of the case.