green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 3×
33.8 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2019–2023 · 2 courts ·
…the law cannot be established by dicta. dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.
at p. 1530
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 47 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Abby Martin v. Chancellor for The Board of Regents of The University System Georgia
the law cannot be established by dicta. dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Morrow v. Meachum
the law cannot be established by dicta. dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
White v. Lemacks
cornelius' viability is questionable in light of the supreme court's subsequent decision in .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown v. Gonzalez
It is well-settled that “dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n.11 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996), then citing Adams v. St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden
Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.”) (alteration adopted) (quotation marks omitted); Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n.11 (11th Cir. 1999) (“This Circuit has held that dicta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity pur- poses.”); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1531 (11th Cir. 1996) (re- versing a denial of qualified immunity where “the district court re- lied upon dicta . . . as having clearly established the law, something that dicta cannot do”), superseded on other grounds as reco…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Vernon v. Deramus
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996), abrogated on other grounds as recognized by Waldron v. Spicher, 954 F.3d 1297, 1306 (11th Cir. 2020) (“The law cannot be established by dicta.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cooper v. Lister
Jones, 174 F.3d at 1288 n.11 (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Watkins v. Officer David Session
Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” (quoting Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nilesh S. Patel v. James Smith
See Caldwell, 748 F.3d at 1102 n.14 (“Only cases from the United States Supreme Court, this Court, and the highest state court under which the claim arose can clearly establish 21 Case: 19-11253 Date Filed: 08/11/2020 Page: 22 of 37 the law in our Circuit.”); cf. also Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n.11 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[D]icta cannot clearly establish the law for qualified immunity purposes.” (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996))).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Aubrey Williams v. Daniel Aguirre
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1531 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding that dicta cannot “clearly establish[] the law”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Prison Legal News v. Chapman
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also In re United States, 60 F.3d 729, 731 (11th Cir.1995) ("Statements of dicta are not part of the law of the case.”); United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir.1992) ("[DJicta is inherently unreliable for what a court will don once faced with a question squarely and once its best thoughts, along with briefs and oral argument, are focused on the precise issue.”) (Edmonson, J., concurring). .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Valencia-Trujillo
See United States v. Eggersdorf 126 F.3d 1318 , 1322 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) (“The pertinent language ... is dicta — not necessary to deciding the case then before us.”); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996) ("Those passages ... are clearly dicta, because they were in no way essential to [the] holding ....”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Carmichael
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996) (defining dictum as those parts of a decision that are not essential to the holding). 27 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Anthony Aron v. United States
(2×)
See United States v. Aguillard, 217 F.3d 1319, 1321 (11th Cir.2000) ("`The holdings of a prior decision can reach only as far as the facts and circumstances presented to the Court in the case which produced that decision.'") (citation omitted); United States v. Eggersdorf, 126 F.3d 1318 , 1322 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997) ("[T]he pertinent language in [ United States v.] Carter [ 110 F.3d 759 (11th Cir.1997)] is dicta — not necessary to deciding the case then before us."); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996) ("Those passages from Wideman [v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc., 826 …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Clay
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996) (defining dicta as those parts of a decision that are not essential to the holding). ’Nonetheless, the argument of the Court of Appeals has considerable persuasive value. 29 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Linda Denno, as Parent, Legal Guardian and Next Friend for Wayne Denno v. School Board of Volusia County, Florida Dennis Roberts, an Individual
(2×)
Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n. 11 (11th Cir.1999); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996). 54 Was the Law Clearly Established? 55 On July 2, 1966, the old Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals handed down the companion cases of Burnside v. Byars, 363 F.2d 744 (5th Cir.1966), and Blackwell v. Issaquena County Bd. of Educ., 363 F.2d 749 (5th Cir.1966). 2 In both cases, students in all-black schools were wearing and distributing buttons put out by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Blalock v. Dale County Board of Education
As previously stated, to attach individual liability to Monday, Plaintiff must prove that Monday “violated not only a constitutional right, but a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.” Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Denno v. School Bd. of Volusia Cty.
Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n.11 (11th Cir. 1999); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Denno v. School Board of Volusia County
Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n. 11 (11th Cir.1999); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Cannon
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. Cannon
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996); see also Adams v. St.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rowe v. Coffey
(2×)
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1534 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. Bibb County, Georgia
See e.g., Id. at 1150; Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santamorena v. GA Military College
Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996); see also In re United States, 60 F.3d 729, 731 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Statements of dicta are not part of the law of the case.”); United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir. 1992)(“[D]icta is inherently unreliable for what a court will do once faced with a question squarely and once its best thoughts, along with briefs and oral argument, are focused on the precise issue.”) (Edmondson, J., concurring).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Santamorena v. Georgia Military College
Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.” Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996): see also In re United States, 60 F.3d 729, 731 (11th Cir.1995) ("Statements of dicta are not part of the law of the case.”); United States v. Teague, 953 F.2d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir.1992)("[D]icta is inherently unreliable for what a court will do once faced with a question squarely and once its best thoughts, along with briefs and oral argument, are focused on the precise issue.”) (Edmondson, J., concurring).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Donato v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.
Hamilton By and Through Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir.1996) (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Donato v. American Telephone
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir.1996) (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Donato v. American Tel. & Tel. Co.
Hamilton By and Through Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1535 (11th Cir.1996) (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wyke v. Polk County School Board
(2×)
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wyke v. Polk County School Board
(2×)
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Carol Wyke, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shawn David Wyke, a Minor Deceased v. Polk County School Board, Max Linton, Individually and as Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, and James Butler, Individually and as Vice-Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, Carol Wyke, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of Shawn David Wyke, a Minor Deceased v. Polk County School Board, Max Linton, Individually and as Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County, and James Butler, Individually and as Vice-Principal of McLaughlin Junior High School of Polk County
(2×)
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wyke v. Polk County School Board
(2×)
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamilton v. Cannon
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir.1996).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bogle v. City of Warner Robins
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1528 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Hamilton v. Cannon
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Estate of F.R Jr. v. County of Yuba
See 18 also Waldron v. Spicher, 954 F.3d 1297 , 1306 (11th Cir. 2020) 19 (“an unsuccessful, negligent, or reckless . . . interference with 20 a bystander’s rescue attempt” does not constitute a substantive 21 due process violation) (quoting Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 22 provides no support for those allegations, but rather 23 demonstrates that the officers knew emergency medical assistance was en route and themselves provided medical aid.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hunter v. Etowah Cnty. Court Referral Program, LLC
See Thomas v. Roberts , 323 F.3d 950 , 953 (11th Cir. 2003) ("In this circuit, rights are 'clearly established' by decisions of the Supreme Court, this court, or the highest court of the state in which the case arose." (citing Hamilton v. Cannon , 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n.7 (11th Cir. 1996) ) ).
discussed
Cited "see"
Doggrell v. City of Anniston
See Thomas v. Roberts, 323 F.3d 950 , 953 (11th Cir. 2003) ("In this circuit, rights are ‘clearly established’ by decisions of the Supreme Court, this court, or the highest court of the state in which the case arose.” (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n.7 (11th Cir. 1996))). .
discussed
Cited "see"
Glidewell v. Town of Gantt
See Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n. 7 (11th Cir.1996) (citing cases for the proposition that law can be clearly established in this circuit only by decisions of the Supreme Court, this Eleventh Circuit, or the highest court of the state from which the case arose).
discussed
Cited "see"
Jerry Charges Vaughn v. Fred Lawrence Cox
See Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n. 7 (11th Cir.1996) (law can be clearly established in this circuit only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, this court, or the highest court of the state from which the case arose).
cited
Cited "see"
Tiffany Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education
See Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n. 7 (11th Cir. 1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tiffany Thomas v. Clayton County Bd. of Education
(2×)
See Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n. 7 (11th Cir.1996).
cited
Cited "see"
Risbridger v. Connelly
See Hamilton By and Through Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530-31 (11th Cir.1996).
discussed
Cited "see"
Mitchell v. Duval County School Board
See Hamilton By and Through Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1531 n. 6 (11th Cir.1996); Lovins v. Lee, 53 F.3d 1208, 1211 (11th Cir.1995); Wooten v. Campbell, 49 F.3d 696 , 700 n. 4 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 379 , 133 L.Ed.2d 302 (1995); Wright v. Lovin, 32 F.3d 538 , 541 n. 1 (11th Cir.1994).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Jordan v. Cobb County, Georgia
“In this circuit, the law can be ‘clearly established’ for qualified immunity purposes only by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, or the highest court of the state where the case arose.” Jenkins v. Talladega City Bd. of Educ., 115 F.3d 821 , 827 n. 4 (11th Cir.1997); see also Vaughan v. Cox, 264 F.3d 1027 , 1036-37 (11th Cir.2001) (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 , 1532 n. 7 (11th Cir.1996)).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hamilton
v.
Cannon
v.
Cannon
94-9098.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 19, 1996.
80 F.3d 1525
Cited by 80 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Eleventh Circuit (1) · Fifth Circuit (1)
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Nos. 94-9098, 94-9158.
Matthew HAMILTON, By and Through Lovelurn HAMILTON, his next friend, Lovelurn Hamilton, Administratrix of the Estate of Kim Orlena Hamilton, Una Hamilton, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Charles CANNON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Macon County, Georgia, Ronald Duncan, Macon Co., GA, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, Michael Tookes, Defendants-Appellants,
The Macon County Sheriff's Department, The Macon County/City of Montezuma, Georgia, Department of Parks and Recreation, The City of Montezuma, Georgia, Police Department, Freddy Mallard, Logan Walton, XYZ Pool Management Company, Lonnie Brown, Defendants,
The City of Montezuma, Lonnie Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
Matthew HAMILTON, By and Through Lovelurn HAMILTON, his next friend, Lovelurn Hamilton, Administratrix of the Estate of Kim Orlena Hamilton, Una Hamilton, Plaintiffs- Appellants,
v.
Charles CANNON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Macon County, Georgia, Ronald Duncan, Macon Co., GA, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, City of Montezuma, and Lonnie Brown, Defendants-Appellees,
The Macon County Sheriff's Department, et al., Defendants.
June 5, 1997.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. (No. 92-CV-276-3- MAC), Duross Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge.
Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.
Eleventh Circuit.
Nos. 94-9098, 94-9158.
Matthew HAMILTON, By and Through Lovelurn HAMILTON, his next friend, Lovelurn Hamilton, Administratrix of the Estate of Kim Orlena Hamilton, Una Hamilton, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
Charles CANNON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Macon County, Georgia, Ronald Duncan, Macon Co., GA, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, Michael Tookes, Defendants-Appellants,
The Macon County Sheriff's Department, The Macon County/City of Montezuma, Georgia, Department of Parks and Recreation, The City of Montezuma, Georgia, Police Department, Freddy Mallard, Logan Walton, XYZ Pool Management Company, Lonnie Brown, Defendants,
The City of Montezuma, Lonnie Brown, Defendants-Appellees.
Matthew HAMILTON, By and Through Lovelurn HAMILTON, his next friend, Lovelurn Hamilton, Administratrix of the Estate of Kim Orlena Hamilton, Una Hamilton, Plaintiffs- Appellants,
v.
Charles CANNON, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Macon County, Georgia, Ronald Duncan, Macon Co., GA, a political subdivision of the State of Georgia, City of Montezuma, and Lonnie Brown, Defendants-Appellees,
The Macon County Sheriff's Department, et al., Defendants.
June 5, 1997.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia. (No. 92-CV-276-3- MAC), Duross Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge.
Before TJOFLAT and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
This case arose from the tragic death of Kim Orlena Hamilton at a Montezuma, Georgia
municipal swimming pool. The three plaintiffs—Hamilton's mother, Hamilton's minor child, and the Administratrix of Hamilton's estate—brought this action in federal district court alleging constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law negligence claims. The complaint named as defendants Macon County, Georgia; the Macon County Sheriff's Department; Macon County
Deputy Sheriff Ronald Duncan (in his individual and official capacities); and Macon County Sheriff
Charles Cannon (in his official capacity only). The complaint also named as defendants the City of Montezuma; Michael Tookes, a lifeguard at the swimming pool (in his individual and official capacities); and Lonnie Brown, the manager of the pool (in his individual and official capacities).1
Relying solely on Georgia's "public duty doctrine," the district court granted summary
judgment to all of the defendants on the plaintiffs' state law negligence claims. Hamilton v. Cannon, 864 F.Supp. 1332, 1338 (M.D.Ga.1994). The court also granted Lonnie Brown summary judgment on the section 1983 claims, in his individual capacity, on the ground of qualified immunity. Id.
However, the court denied Tookes' and Duncan's motions for summary judgment on the section
1983 claims, in their individual capacities, holding that they were not entitled to qualified immunity.
Id.
On appeal, we reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to defendants Tookes and Duncan on the section 1983 claims. Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1532 (11th Cir.1996).
Having substantial doubt about the proper resolution of the state law negligence claims, we certified four questions to the Georgia Supreme Court, including the following:
(1) Does the "public duty doctrine" established in City of Rome v. Jordan, [263 Ga. 26] 426 S.E.2d 861 (Ga.1993), apply outside the police protection context and in the circumstances of this case?
The Georgia Supreme Court has answered that certified question in the negative, making it unnecessary for that court to address any of the remaining three questions. Hamilton v. Cannon, ---
Ga. ----, 482 S.E.2d 370, 372, (1997). In light of the Georgia Supreme Court's opinion, we
VACATE the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the state law negligence claims. We REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with Georgia law as illuminated by the Georgia Supreme Court's answer to our certified question, and we note that those proceedings may include consideration of whether any of the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on a basis other than Georgia's public duty doctrine.
1 Additional defendants were also named, but the claims against those defendants have been settled.