Harrell v. Decatur Cnty., GA, 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Harrell v. Decatur Cnty., GA, 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
53 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 16 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Andres Gregory v. Miami-Dade County, Florida (ca11, 2017-11-15) · Strongest negative: A.P. v. Edward Feaver (ca11, 2008-08-21)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 19 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Vacated A.P. v. Edward Feaver (2×)
11th Cir. · 2008 · confidence high
Qualified immunity “is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,’’ Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and therefore its purposes would be “thwarted if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Harrell v. Decatur County, 22 F.3d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994) (Dubina, J., dissenting), vacated by 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (adopting Judge Dubina’s dissenting opinion). .
discussed Vacated Arrid Baltimore v. City of Albany, Georgia (2×)
11th Cir. · 2006 · confidence high
As such, qualified immunity allows officials to “carry out their discretionary duties without the fear of personal liability or harassing litigation[.]” Id. at 1194 (citing Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638 , 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)). 8 It is important to note that qualified immunity is “immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability,” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985), and therefore its purposes would be “thwarted if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Harrell v. Decatur County, Ga.,…
discussed Vacated Mildred Robinson v. Daniel Arrugueta
11th Cir. · 2005 · confidence high
We note that qualified immunity is "immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 , 105 S.Ct. 2806, 2815 , 86 L.Ed.2d 411 (1985). "[The] important purposes of qualified immunity are thwarted if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Harrell v. Decatur County, Ga., 22 F.3d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir.1994) (Dubina, J. dissenting) vacated by 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1995) (adopting Judge Dubina’s dissenting opinion).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Andres Gregory v. Miami-Dade County, Florida
11th Cir. · 2017 · confidence medium
Id. at 1580 (Dubina, J., dissenting).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Iowa Network Services, Inc. v. Qwest Corp.
S.D. Iowa · 2005 · confidence medium
Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc., 71 F.3d 1086, 1096 (3d Cir.1995); Western Union Int’l, Inc. v. Data Dev., Inc., 41 F.3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir.1995); MCI Telecomms.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Pablo Hernandez v. City of Miami
S.D. Fla. · 2004 · confidence medium
See, e.g., O’Neal v. DeKalb County, 850 F.2d 653, 655, 657-58 (11th Cir.1988) (officers’ use of deadly force in shooting hospital patient was reasonable because patient had gone on a rampage through the hospital and stabbed several people, and because patient, when told to drop his knife and lie on the ground, rushed the officers with his knife); Menuel v. City of Atlanta, 25 F.3d 990, 994-97 (11th Cir.1994) (officers did not violate Fourth Amendment by shooting mentally troubled person, who had previously lunged at them with a knife, when she opened fire on them as they entered locked bed…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) BellSouth Telecommunications v. MCImetro Access
11th Cir. · 2002 · confidence medium
Rand, Ltd., 460 U.S. 533, 534 , 103 S.Ct. 1343, 1343 , 75 L.Ed.2d 260 (1983) (notwithstanding that the dispute involves a simple contract collection, the duty and obligation to pay grows out of and is dependant upon the federal act mandating the agreement between the parties); Louisville & N.R.R. v. Rice, 247 U.S. 201, 202-03 , 38 S.Ct. 429, 429 , 62 L.Ed. 1071 (1918); Western Union Int’l v. Data Dev., 41 F.3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir. 1995) (same with respect to a suit to collect payment of a tariff under the Communications Act of 1934).6 Considering BellSouth’s arguments,7 as summarized abov…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Worldcom v. NH Exteriors
D.N.H. · 1999 · confidence medium
And, “a tariff, required by law to be filed, constitutes the law and is not merely a contract.” Western Union, 41 F.3d at 1496 (citations omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fax Telecommunicaciones Inc. v. At&t, Michael Gilmartin and Richard Stotts
2d Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Inc., 41 F.3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir.1995); cf Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Rice, 2A1 U.S. 201, 202-03, 38 S.Ct. 429, 429-30 , 62 L.Ed. 1071 (1918) (court has federal question jurisdiction over suit to recover payments pursuant to rate filed under Interstate Commerce Act, on which FCA is modeled);' Thurston Motor Lines, Inc. v. Jordan K.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Suzanne Cahnmann, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Sprint Corporation
7th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
A tariff filed with a federal agency is the equivalent of a federal regulation, Lowden v. Simonds-Shields-Lonsdale Grain Co., supra, 306 U.S. at 520 , 59 S.Ct. at 614 ; Western Union Int’l, Inc. v. Data Development, Inc., 41 F.3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir.1995); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Garden State Investment Corp., supra, 981 F.2d at 387 , and so a suit to enforce it, and even more clearly a suit to invalidate it as unreasonable under federal law (both types of suit being comprehended in the plaintiff’s contract count), arise under federal law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lipcon v. Sprint Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
In Western Union International, Inc. v. Data Development, Inc., 41 F.3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir.1995), a decision not dependent on Ivy, the Eleventh Circuit found jurisdiction proper in federal court based on a line of cases tracing back to Louisville & Nashville Railroad, Co. v. Rice, 247 U.S. 201 , 38 S.Ct. 429 , 62 L.Ed. 1071 (1918) and confirmed by Thurston Motor Lines v. Jordan K.
discussed Cited "see" Hill v. City of Montgomery, Alabama (NO DISCOVERY DOC 228) (CONSENT) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
M.D. Ala. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrell, 41 F.3d 1494 .14 b.
cited Cited "see" Communications Network Services, Inc. v. MCI WorldCom Communications, Inc.
Ga. Ct. App. · 2002 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western Union Intl. v. Data Dev., 41 F3d 1494, 1496 (11th Cir. 1995).
cited Cited "see" Willingham v. Loughnan
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harrell v. Decatur County, 22 F.3d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir. 1994) (Dubina, J., dissenting) approved on rehearing 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see" Willingham v. Loughnan (2×)
11th Cir. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Harell v. Decatur County, 22 F.3d 1570, 1578 (11th Cir.1994) (Dubina, J., dissenting) approved on rehearing 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1995).
discussed Cited "see" Keith MAYDAK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BONDED CREDIT COMPANY INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western Union Int’l, Inc. v. Data Dev., Inc., 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1995); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graham, 7 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.1993); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Garden State Inv.
cited Cited "see" Mellman v. Sprint Communications Co.
N.D. Fla. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western Union Int’l Inc. v. Data Dev., Inc., 41 F.3d 1494 , 1496 n. 3 (11th Cir.1995). 9 .
examined Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc. (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western Union Int'l, Inc. v. Data Dev., Inc., 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1995); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graham, 7 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1993); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Garden State Inv.
discussed Cited "see" MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Teleconcepts, Incorporated, Defendant/third-Party v. Bell of Pennsylvania, Third-Party Teleconcepts, Incorporated (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
3rd Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Western Union Int'l, Inc. v. Data Dev., Inc., 41 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1995); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Graham, 7 F.3d 477 (6th Cir.1993); MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Garden State Inv.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Linda L. HARRELL, Individually, as Personal Representative, and as Surviving Spouse of Larry Gene Harrell, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DECATUR COUNTY, GA., Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
93-8905, 93-9165.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jan 10, 1995.
41 F.3d 1494
Nick M. Bajalia, Valdosta, GA, Charles A. Mathis, Jr., D. James Jordan, Milledgeville, GA, for appellant., George M. Peagler, Jr., Ellis & Easterlin, Americus, GA, William C. Sanders, Alexander & Vann, Thomasville, GA, for appellees.
Hatchett, Dubina, Eschbach.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Reporter's Syllabus — editorial summary, not part of the Court's opinion

Nick M. Bajalia, Valdosta, GA, Charles A. Mathis, Jr., D. James Jordan, Milledgeville, GA, for appellant.

George M. Peagler, Jr., Ellis & Easterlin, Americus, GA, William C. Sanders, Alexander & Vann, Thomasville, GA, for appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia (No. 91-59-THOM), J. Robert Elliott, District Judge.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before HATCHETT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH*, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Rehearing

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

Before HATCHETT and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH *, Senior Circuit Judge. PER CURIAM:

Our previous panel opinion reported at 22 F.3d 1570 (11th Cir.1994) is hereby VACATED.[1]

After rehearing this case, which included the consideration of supplemental briefs and additional oral argument, we now affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in all respects. We affirm for the reasons set forth in Judge Dubina’s dissenting opinion in Harrell, 22 F.3d at 1577-81, and this court’s recent decision in Lassiter v. Alar bama A & M University, 28 F.3d 1146 (1994) (en banc), which the panel did not have the benefit of at the time we released our opinion in Harrell.

AFFIRMED.

1

In an order filed with the clerk on August 29, 1994, the panel granted the defendants' petition for rehearing.

Concurrence

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge,

concurring:

I agree with this court’s decision to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the question of qualified immunity for Deputy Morris in his individual capacity for the reasons set forth in Judge Dubina’s dissenting opinion in Harrell, 22 F.3d at 1577-80 and this court’s recent decision in Lassiter v. Alabama A & M University, 28 F.3d 1146 (11th Cir.1994) (en bane). I write separately to emphasize that we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment with respect to the claims against Deputy Morris in his official capacity, Sheriff Phillips in his individual and official capacities, Decatur County, and the Decatur County Commissioners because of our determination that Harrell was not deprived of any constitutional rights for the reasons set forth in Judge Dubina’s dissenting opinion in Harrell, 22 F.3d at 1580-81.