U.S. Fid. v. Park 'N Go of GA, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
U.S. Fid. v. Park 'N Go of GA, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
63 citation events (3 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jefferson County v. Acker (ca11, 1998-03-27)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jefferson County v. Acker (8×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
We held in our prior en banc opinion that “[w]hen performing federal judicial duties, a federal judge performs the functions of government itself, and cannot realistically be viewed as a separate entity from the federal court.” Acker, 92 F.3d at 1572 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jefferson County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama v. William M. Acker, Jr., Jefferson County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama v. U.W. Clemon (8×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
We held in our prior en banc opinion that "[w]hen performing federal judicial duties, a federal judge performs the functions of government itself, and cannot realistically be viewed as a separate entity from the federal court." Acker, 92 F.3d at 1572 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Kaufman (2×) also: Cited "see"
S.D. Fla. · 1997 · confidence medium
In Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F.3d 1561, 1572 (11th Cir.1996), the Eleventh Circuit held that when a federal judge is performing judicial duties he or she cannot “realistically be viewed as a separate entity from the federal court.” In the instant case, Judge Paul was presiding over a hearing in his Chambers as the federal judge assigned to United States v. DuBoc.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jefferson County v. Acker (6×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
We held in our prior en banc opinion that "[w]hen performing federal judicial duties, a federal judge performs the functions of government itself, and cannot realistically be viewed as a separate entity from the federal court." Acker, 92 F.3d at 1572 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Jefferson County v. Acker (8×) also: Cited "see"
11th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
We held in our prior en banc opinion that “[w]hen performing federal judicial duties, a federal judge performs the functions of government itself, and cannot realistically be viewed as a separate entity from the federal court.” Acker, 92 F.3d at 1572 (internal quotation and citation omitted).
discussed Cited "see" City of Riverside v. State
Ohio Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson Cty. v. Acker (C.A.11, 1996), 92 F.3d 1561 , 1575, judgment vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1261 , 117 S.Ct. 2429 , 138 L.Ed.2d 191 (“The Buck Act equalizes taxing power within and without federal areas, allowing states and localities to levy taxes within federal areas ‘to the same extent and with the same effect’ as without federal areas. * * * The Buck Act does not, however, affect the limits on state and local taxing power in any other way”).
discussed Cited "see" In Re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation
S.D.N.Y. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F.3d 1561, 1581 (11th Cir.1996) (en banc), vacated on other grounds, 520 U.S. 1261 , 117 S.Ct. 2429 , 138 L.Ed.2d 191 (1997) (“Whether a judge is disqualified, that is, must not take part in deciding a case, is a question of law.”); In re City of Houston, 745 F.2d 925, 927 (5th Cir.1984) (“The issue of judi *66 cial disqualification is solely one of law.”)- 5 Given that expert opinion may not address issues of law, it follows that expert opinion on a recusal motion cannot be admitted unless it involves the rare case where a fact is in dispute.
discussed Cited "see" Jefferson County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama, Plaintiff v. William Acker, Jr., Jefferson County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Alabama, Plaintiff v. U.W. Clemon
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson County v. Acker, 850 F.Supp. 1536 (N.D.Ala.1994), rev'd, 61 F.3d 848 (11th Cir.1995), aff'd en banc, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir.1996), vacated, 520 U.S. 1261 , 117 S.Ct. 2429 , 138 L.Ed.2d 191 (1997), aff'd en banc, 137 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.1998), rev'd, 527 U.S. 423 , 119 S.Ct. 2069 , 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).
discussed Cited "see" Jefferson County v. Acker
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson County v. Acker, 850 F.Supp. 1536 (N.D.Ala.1994), rev’d, 61 F.3d 848 (11th Cir.1995), aff'd en banc, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir.1996), vacated, 520 U.S. 1261 , 117 S.Ct. 2429 , 138 L.Ed.2d 191 (1997), aff'd en banc, 137 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.1998), rev’d, 527 U.S. 423 , 119 S.Ct. 2069 , 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).
examined Cited "see" Jefferson County v. Acker (12×)
SCOTUS · 1999 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson County, 850 F. Supp., at 1537, 1545-1546 . [2] *430 A panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit initially reversed the District Court's judgment, Jefferson County v. Acker, 61 F. 3d 848 (1995), but the Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the District Court's disposition, Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F. 3d 1561, 1576 (1996).
discussed Cited "see" Jefferson County v. Acker
11th Cir. · 1995 · signal: see · confidence high
See Jefferson County v. Acker, 850 F.Supp. 1536 (N.D.Ala.1994), rev'd, 61 F.3d 848 (11th Cir.1995), aff'd en banc, 92 F.3d 1561 (11th Cir.1996), vacated, 520 U.S. 1261 , 117 S.Ct. 2429 , 138 L.Ed.2d 191 (1997), aff'd en banc, 137 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir.1998), rev'd, 527 U.S. 423 , 119 S.Ct. 2069 , 144 L.Ed.2d 408 (1999).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
U.S. Fidelity
v.
Park 'N Go of GA
94-8989.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Aug 29, 1996.
92 F.3d 1561
Published
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

No. 94-8989.

UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

PARK 'N GO OF GA., INC., Defendant-Appellant.

Aug. 29, 1996.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (No. 1:93-cv-1541-JEC), Julie E. Carnes, Judge.

Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON*, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Park 'N Go appealed the grant of summary judgment to United States Fidelity & Guaranty (USF & G), arguing the district court erroneously concluded that USF & G's liability was limited to $250,000 and therefore erroneously granted summary judgment in favor of Appellee. We—pursuant to Ga. Const. art. VI, § 6 para. 4; O.C.G.A. § 15-2-9; and Rule 37 of the Supreme Court of Georgia—certified to the Supreme Court of Georgia the question of USF & G's liability. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Park 'N Go of Georgia, Inc., 66 F.3d 273 (11th Cir.1995).

The Supreme Court has answered the certified question in the affirmative. Park 'N Go of Georgia, Inc. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 266 Ga. 787, 471 S.E.2d 500 (1996). In the light of the Supreme Court of Georgia's opinion, we affirm the decision of the district court.

* Honorable John R. Gibson, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation. AFFIRMED.