Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525 (11th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
139 citation events (74 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Abby Martin v. Chancellor for The Bd. of Regents of The Univ. Sys. Georgia, No. 22-12827 (11th Cir. June 22, 2023)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 1530 Those passages from Wideman [v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.1987)] are clearly dicta, because they were in no way essential to Wideman 's holding....18 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
  • Abby Martin v. Chancellor for The Bd. of Regents of The Univ. Sys. Georgia, No. 22-12827 (11th Cir. June 22, 2023).unpublished
    (The law cannot be established by dicta. Dicta is particularly unhelpful in qualified immunity cases where we seek to identify clearly established law.)
  • Brown v. Gonzalez, No. 2:24-cv-00125 (S.D. Ga. June 27, 2025).
    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 Adam…
  • Vernon v. Deramus, No. 2:24-cv-00500 (N.D. Ala. Dec. 9, 2024).
    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.
  • Cooper v. Lister, No. 1:21-cv-00324 (S.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2023).
    Jones, 174 F.3d at 1288 n.11 (citing Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996)).
  • Watkins v. Officer David Session, No. 0:19-cv-60810 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 18, 2021).
    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)).
  • Nilesh S. Patel v. James Smith, 969 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir. 2020).published
    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 la…
  • Prison Legal News v. Chapman, 44 F. Supp. 3d 1289 (M.D. Ga. 2014).published
    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.199…
  • United States v. Valencia-Trujillo, 573 F.3d 1171 (11th Cir. 2009).published
    (Those passages ... are clearly dicta, because they were in no way essential to [the] holding ....)
  • United States v. Carmichael, 467 F. Supp. 2d 1282 (M.D. Ala. 2006).published
    (defining dictum as those parts of a decision that are not essential to the holding)
  • Anthony Aron v. United States, 291 F.3d 708 (11th Cir. 2002).published 2 cites
    (Those passages from Wideman [v. Shallowford Community Hosp., Inc., 826 F.2d 1030 (11th Cir.1987)] are clearly dicta, because they were in no way essential to Wideman 's holding....)
Show 8 more citing cases
  • United States v. Clay, 159 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (M.D. Ala. 2001).published
    (defining dicta as those parts of a decision that are not essential to the holding)
  • Linda Denno, as Parent, Legal Guardian & Next Friend for Wayne Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cnty., Florida Dennis Roberts, an Individual, 218 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2000).published 2 cites
    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 c…
  • Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cty., 182 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 1999).published
    Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n.11 (11th Cir. 1999); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir. 1996).
  • Denno v. Sch. Bd. of Volusia Cnty., 182 F.3d 780 (11th Cir. 1999).published
    Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 , 1288 n. 11 (11th Cir.1999); Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996).
  • Jones v. Cannon, 174 F.3d 1271 (11th Cir. 1999).published
    Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530 (11th Cir.1996); see also Adams v. St.
  • Santamorena v. GA Military Coll., 147 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 1998).published
    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) (“Stat…
  • Santamorena v. Georgia Military Coll., 147 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir. 1998).published
    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) ("Statem…
  • Risbridger v. Connelly, 122 F. Supp. 2d 857 (W.D. Mich. 2000).published
    See Hamilton By and Through Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F.3d 1525, 1530-31 (11th Cir.1996).
At page 1528 cited at this page6 citing cases
At page 1532 cited at this page3 citing cases
At page 1535 phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved3 citing cases3 citing courts put it this way
  • Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 146 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 1998).published
    (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved)
  • Donato v. Am. Tel., No. 97-2428 (11th Cir. July 23, 1998).published
    (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved)
  • Donato v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 146 F.3d 1329 (11th Cir. 1998).published
    (phrasing used in the certified question does not restrict consideration of the problems involved)
At page 1531 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 do2 citing cases2 citing courts put it this way
  • Douglas Stalley v. Lake CI Warden, No. 22-10881 (11th Cir. Dec. 30, 2024).published
    (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)
  • Aubrey Williams v. Daniel Aguirre, No. 19-11941 (11th Cir. July 13, 2020).published
    (holding that dicta cannot “clearly establish[] the law)
At page 1534 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Rowe v. Coffey, 515 S.E.2d 375 (Ga. 1999).published 2 cites
    Hamilton v. Cannon, 80 F3d 1525, 1534 (11th Cir. 1996).
Quoted next to this citation, but not language from this opinion
“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”quoted beside the cite; not in this opinion · 2 citing cases listed
  • Hunter v. Etowah Cnty. Court Referral Prog., LLC, 309 F. Supp. 3d 1154 (N.D. Ala. 2018).published
    “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”
  • Doggrell v. City of Anniston, 277 F. Supp. 3d 1239 (N.D. Ala. 2017).published
    “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”
Other citing cases9 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Hamilton
v.
Cannon
94-9098.
Docket on CourtListener (RECAP)
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Apr 19, 1996.
Published opinion
80 F.3d 1525
Cited by 80 opinions  |  Published
2 passages pin-cited by 2 cases
Pinpoint authority: bottom 74%
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.
[*~1525–1528]

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

[*~1527–1531]

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.

[*~1529–1533]

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:

[*~1530–1534]

(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?

[*~1531–1535]

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.

[*~1533–1535]

1 Additional defendants were also named, but the claims against those defendants have been settled.