11th Circuit Slip Opinions

General Information

The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeals generally releases opinions on Fridays. This page contains links to the full text of each opinion released this month, plus a list of all the cases decided each week, whether or not an opinion was released. If the case summary interests you, click on the name of the case and you should see the full text of the opinion, which you can save to your computer.

Elsewhere, we have included opinions and summaries of cases from the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals, and the United States Supreme Court of Alabama.

Slip Opinions

November 5

Broward Gardens Tenants Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
Summary: (Carnes, J.) Affirming the District Court’s dismissal of this challenge to a CERCLA clean-up plan for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court held (1) the Plaintiffs’ complaint was a “challenge” to the remedial plan subject to the jurisdiction bar erected by 42 U.S.C. § 9613(h), and (2) § 9613(h) applies equally to constitutional and statutory challenges, joining the Sixth Circuit on this issue of first impression.

In re Martinez
Summary: (per curiam) In this Bankruptcy appeal, the Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s summary judgment ruling, affirmed by the District Court, that the Defendant had violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and thus was liable to the Plaintiff for $1,000 plus costs and attorney’s fees.

November 6

McMahan v. Toto
Summary: (Carnes, J.) The Court granted rehearing in this case sua sponte and held (1) the Court had the authority to modify its prior opinion to follow a subsequent decision of the Florida Court of Appeals contrary to the Court’s guess about Florida law, (2) Florida’s offer of judgment statute applies to cases that are tried in the State of Florida even though the substantive law governing the case is that of another state, (3) the fact that the offer of judgment did not mention attorney’s fees did not preclude a fee award, (4) the offer was not made in bad faith, and (5) the District Court should have decreased the fee award by the amount spent litigating the amount of attorney’s fees.

November 8

Bainbridge v. Turner
Summary: (Tjoflat, J.) Vacating summary judgment for the State in this Commerce Clause challenge to Florida’s restrictions on out-of-state shipments of wine, the Court held the factual record was too incomplete to justify judgment as a matter of law for the State. This opinion contains a good discussion of the interrelation of the dormant Commerce Clause and the Twenty-First Amendment. Judge Roney dissented.

Behlen v. Merryl Lynch
Summary: (Wilson, J.) Affirming the dismissal of this securities class action under the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998, the Court held (1) the District Court had removal jurisdiction over this “covered class action” under the Act, notwithstanding that a class had not been certified prior to removal, and (2) the District Court properly denied the Plaintiff’s motion to remand even though the Plaintiff amended his complaint after removal to delete all claims and allegations that fell within the Act’s scope.

City of Hialeah, Florida v. Rojas
Summary: (Tjoflat, J.) Decertifying a class certified by the District Court in this case alleging a discriminatory employment policy, the Court held the named Plaintiff’s claims under Title VII and § 1983 were time-barred and thus he lacks standing to bring this action on behalf of a class of similarly situated Hispanic employees and former employees.

November 12

Crawford v. Head
Summary: (Anderson, J.) Affirming denial of this § 2254 habeas petition of a prisoner on death row in Georgia, the Court held (1) the state court’s decision with respect to the Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance was not an unreasonable determination and thus did not merit habeas relief, (2) the Petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief on his claim that the prosecution failed to provide him with exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and (3) the state court did not act contrary to, or unreasonably apply, clearly established federal law in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim regarding juror misconduct.

Ellis v. C.R. Bard, Inc.
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the District Court’s order granting summary judgment and costs to the Defendants in this products liability dispute governed by Georgia law, the Court held (1) the District Court properly applied Georgia’s learned intermediary doctrine to the prescription medical device at issue, (2) the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act does not preempt Georgia’s learned intermediary doctrine, and (3) the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Plaintiff’s motion to reduce the cost award.

November 13

Gary v. City of Warner Robbins, Georgia
Summary: (Wilson, J.) Affirming summary judgment for the City in this constitutional challenge to a city ordinance enforced against a nude dancing establishment, the Court held (1) the District Court properly rejected the Plaintiff’s claim that the ordinance infringed on her equal protection right as a person younger than 21 to work as a nude dancer in an establishment that primarily serves alcohol, and (2) the District Court properly concluded that the ordinance does not restrict the Plaintiff’s right to observe or engage in nude dancing.

Kelliher v. Veneman
Summary: (Kravitch, J.) Affirming the District Court’s review of the decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board in this federal employment discrimination case, the Court held (1) as a matter of first impression, a district court reviewing a mixed case from the Board under 5 U.S.C. § 7703(b)(2) reviews the discrimination claims de novo but reviews the nondiscrimination claims under the arbitrary and capricious standard set by 5 U.S.C. § 7703(c), and (2) the District Court properly applied these standards to the Board’s decision.

November 14

Alabama Power Company v. Federal Communications Commission
Summary: (Tjoflat, J.) Denying the Petitioners’ request to review the FCC’s determination under the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that the price demanded for a cable television company’s mandatory right of access was too high, the Court held that the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof in challenging the rate imposed by the FCC under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This opinion contains a good discussion of the mandatory access provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Vinyard v. Wilson
Summary: (Hull, J.) Reviewing the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the Defendants in this § 1983 excessive force case, the Court held (1) the arresting officer was not entitled to qualify immunity for handcuffing the Plaintiff and using pepper spray on her during an arrest for minor offenses, but (2) the District Court properly granted the sheriff qualified immunity from the Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim for failure to investigate her complaint of police brutality. This opinion contains a good discussion of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Hope v. Pelzer, 122 S. Ct. 2508 (2002), on qualified immunity determinations.

November 18

Nix v Franklin County School District
Summary: (Pollak, D.J., by designation) Affirming summary judgment for the Defendants in this § 1983 case involving the accidental death of a student in a high school electromechanical class, the Court held the Plaintiffs failed to establish a substantive due process right that had been violated as opposed to an injury policed by state tort law.

November 19

Chrysler Financial Corp. v. Powe
Summary: (George, D.J., by designation) In this bankruptcy appeal, the Court held the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court’s class certification decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f); rather, a party who wishes to bring such an appeal must petition the District Court for permission to appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a).

Dahl v Holley
Summary: Affirming summary judgment for the Defendants in this § 1983 case arising from an arrest and property search, the Court held (1) the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was arrested in violation of the Fourth Amendment, (2) the Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that her Fourth Amendment rights were violated in connection with the search warrant application, (3) the existence of probable cause to arrest the Plaintiff defeated her First Amendment claim that she was arrested in retaliation for a constitutionally protected speech, and (4) the District Court properly entered summary judgment on the Plaintiff’s claim that the City inadequately trained and supervised its officers.

Hofman-Pugh v Ramsey
Summary: (Carnes, J.) Affirming dismissal of the Plaintiff’s libel and slander complaint governed by Georgia law, the Court held, (1) when the book published by John and Patricia Ramsey about the death of Jon Benet Ramsey is considered as a whole, the statements in the book made about the Plaintiff (their housekeeper) do not accuse her of murder or create a general impression that she is a murder suspect, and (2) the book is not defamatory of the Plaintiff as a matter of law.

Keener v Convergys Corp
Summary: (per curiam) In this case involving a covenant not to compete, the Court certified the following question to the Georgia Supreme Court: whether a court applying Georgia conflict of laws rules follows the language of Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws § 187(2) and, therefore, first must ascertain whether Georgia has a “materially greater interest” in applying Georgia law, rather than the contractually selected forum’s law, before it elects to apply Georgia law to invalidate a non-compete agreement as contrary to Georgia public policy?

Reynolds v Butts
Summary: (per curiam) Dismissing this appeal from the denial of a motion for contempt, the Court held it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal because the Appellants are neither parties to the underlying consent decree nor named representatives or intervening members of a class in the litigation and thus do not have standing to enforce the consent decree.

United States v Hall
Summary: (Hull, J.) Reviewing the Defendant’s convictions and sentence for a child pornography offense, the Court held (1) the District Court’s pretrial Rule 404(b) ruling was not reviewable on appeal because the evidence at issue (a videotaped interview of the victim) was never admitted into evidence, (2) the District Court did not commit plain error that affected the Defendant’s substantial rights in giving a jury instruction that violated the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 122 S. Ct. 1389 (2002), because the evidence established that the children at issue were actual, not virtual, children, and (3) the District Court erred in failing to apply a four-level sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2G2.2(b)(3). This opinion contains a good discussion of how the Supreme Court’s decision in Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984) (holding that a district court’s in limine evidentiary ruling permitting prior conviction evidence was not reviewable because the defendant never testified and thus the government’s prior conviction evidence was never introduced at trial) applies in other evidentiary contexts.

November 21

United States v Ballinger
Summary: (Hill, J.) Reversing the Defendant’s conviction for church arson under 18 U.S.C. § 247, the Court held (1) Congress did not exceed its authority under the Commerce Clause in enacting § 247, (2) as a matter of first impression, § 247 requires the Government to prove a substantial effect on interstate commerce resulting from the church arson in question (a purely intrastate activity), and (3) the Government failed to prove that each church’s activities substantially affected interstate commerce, requiring reversal of the Defendant’s convictions. Judge Hall, sitting by designation, dissented.

United States v Rogers
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the District Court’s restitution order following the Defendant’s conviction of a firearm offense, the Court held, as a matter of first impression, that a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm during a robbery may be ordered to pay restitution in the amount of the loss caused to the victim of the robbery without running afoul of the rule announced in Hughey v. United States, 495 U.S. 411 (1990).

November 22

United States v. Clark
Summary: (per curiam) Affirming the Defendant’s conviction for illegally reentering the United States, the Court held the District Court did not err in rejecting the Defendant’s argument that he was untimely prosecuted in violation of the five-year limitation of 18 U.S.C. § 3282 because the Defendant was “found in” the United States when the INS officials, not state officials, discovered his presence.

November 27

Brandon, Jones, Sandall, Zeide, Kohn, Chalal & Musso, P.A. v. MedPartners, Inc.
Summary: (per curiam) Reviewing an arbitration order in a number of cases, the Court held (1) there was no jurisdiction over an appeal from the District Court’s arbitration order in the case where the District Court retained jurisdiction over an award of attorney’s fees and closing the case instead of dismissing it, (2) there was no jurisdiction over an appeal from the arbitration order related to two consolidated cases because the District Court merely stayed one of those cases pending arbitration, (3) the Court had jurisdiction over that portion of the arbitration order dissolving an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), and (4) the District Court properly dissolved the injunction prohibiting the AAA from conducting the arbitration because the parties’ contract made all the claims arbitrable, notwithstanding the artful pleading used in one of the complaints.

November 29

United States v. Goddard
Summary: (Farris, J., by designation) Affirming the denial of the Defendant’s motion to suppress, the Court held there was probable cause to search his person incident to a lawful warrantless arrest made in a public place.

Slip Opinions Main Menu | US 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Main Menu