Cannon v. MacOn Cnty., 15 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 1994). · Go Syfert
Search
Cannon v. MacOn Cnty., 15 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 1994). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
54 citation events (48 in the last 25 years) across 15 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Aliff v. Vervent, Inc. (casd, 2023-01-11)
Treatment trajectory · 1994 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1994 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aliff v. Vervent, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) 13 Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is proper “whenever the actual interests of 14 the parties can be served best by settling their differences in a single action.” Hanlon, 150 15 F.3d at 1022 (internal quotations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Tanseer Kazi v. PNC, Bank, N.A.
N.D. Cal. · 2020 · confidence medium
That said, the Ninth Circuit has consistently “held that ‘there is clear 12 justification for handling the dispute on a representative rather than an individual basis’ if 13 ‘common questions present a significant aspect of the case and they can be resolved for all 14 members of the class in a single adjudication.’” Mazza, 666 F.3d at 589 (quoting Hanlon, 150 15 F.3d at 1022).
discussed Cited "see" Montgomery-Harbin v. Wilcher (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558, 1562-63 (11th Cir. 1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Bizzard v. Foraker (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558 , 1562–63 (11th Cir.1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Hayward v. Mundy (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558 , 1562–63 (11th Cir.1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
cited Cited "see" Bizzard v. Foraker
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 1562 n. 3.
discussed Cited "see" Bizzard v. Foraker (2×)
S.D. Ga. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558 , 1562–63 (11th Cir. 1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Mears v. McCulley (2×)
N.D. Ala. · 2012 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558, 1562-63 (11th Cir.1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
discussed Cited "see" Campbell v. Johnson (2×)
11th Cir. · 2009 · signal: see · confidence high
See Cannon v. Macon County, 1 F.3d 1558, 1562-63 (11th Cir.1993), modified on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (1994).
cited Cited "see, e.g." David Sosa v. Martin County, Florida
11th Cir. · 2021 · signal: see also · confidence low
See id. at 952; see also Cannon v. Macon Cnty., 1 F.3d 1558, 1563 (11th Cir. 1993), opinion modified on reh’g on other grounds, 15 F.3d 1022 (11th Cir. 1994).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mary Cannon
v.
MacOn County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama Robin Collins Elbert Dawson, Mike Knowles, Individually, and MacOn County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama
92-6200.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Mar 7, 1994.
15 F.3d 1022
Cited by 4 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: E.D. California (1) · S.D. California (1)

15 F.3d 1022

Mary CANNON, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
MACON COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of
Alabama; Robin Collins; Elbert Dawson, Mike Knowles,
individually, and Macon County, a political subdivision of
the State of Alabama, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 92-6200.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

March 7, 1994.

John L. Cottle, III, Bowles & Cottle, Tallassee, AL, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jock M. Smith, Tuskegee Institute, AL, for defendants-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (No. CV90-V-01132-E), Robert E. Varner, Judge.

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

(Opinion Sept. 17, 1993, 11th Cir., 1 F.3d 1558)

Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, FAY[*] and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

1

Upon consideration of petitions for rehearing filed by Plaintiff/Appellant Mary Cannon and Defendant/Appellee Robin Collins, the Court orders that its opinion be modified in the following manner:

2

The third and fourth sentences of the last paragraph beginning on 1 F.3d at 1564 through page 1565 are deleted and in their place are inserted the following quoted language from Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987):

3

The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful ...; but it is to say that in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.

4

483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 (citation omitted; emphasis added by this Court).

5

Because the panel believes the opinion is correct in all other respects, the petitions for rehearing are denied.

*

See Rue 34-2(b), Rules of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit