These summaries for the
United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
slip opinions
have been provided by
Bradley Arant Rose & White
LLP
2001 Park
Place, Suite 1400, Birmingham, AL 35203
Inquiries may be directed to the attention of Scott
B. Smith
of Bradley Arant's Appellate Litigation
Group.
Hudson
v. Hall, No. 99-8104 (10/30/00): (Edmundson, J.) Reversing
the District Court's partial denial of qualified immunity to a
police officer in a Section 1983 suit arising from a traffic stop,
the Court held (1) the Plaintiffs' cross-appeal was sufficiently
intertwined with the Defendant's interlocutory appeal to permit
pendent appellate jurisdiction, (2) the officer had probable cause
to stop the car after the driver failed to use a turn signal, (3)
the officer had consent to search the car, and (4) the officer was
not entitled to qualified immunity for search of persons where
factual disputes over consent existed.
United
States v. Pounds, No. 99-15058 (10/20/00): (per curiam)
Affirming the Defendant's sentence, the Court holds the discharge of
a weapon under 18 U.S.C. 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) is a sentencing factor
rather than an element of the offense and 924(c)(1)(A)(iii) does not
increase the statutory maximum sentence for using and carrying a
firearm in relation to a crime of violence, distinguishing
Apprendi.
Chandler
v. Siegelman, Nos. 97-6898 & -6953 (10/19/00): On remand
from the U.S. Supreme Court following its decision in Santa Fe Ind.
Sch. Dist. v. Doe, 120 S. Ct. 2266 (2000) (holding school
sponsorship of prayer unconstitutional), the Court reinstates its
earlier opinion vacating Judge DeMent's permanent injunction against
school prayer, holding the voluntary and private nature of the
prayer at issue distinguished the case from the holding in Sante
Fe.
Spain
v. Brown & Williamson, No. 99-15021 (10/18/00): (Carnes,
J.) In a cigarette products liability case, the Court certifies the
following questions to the Supreme Court of Alabama: (1) When does
the Alabama statute of limitations begin to run in a smoking
products liability action? (2) Does Alabama's rule of repose apply
to such actions? (3) If so, when does it begin to run? (4) Before
federal law mandated warning labels, were cigarettes unreasonably
dangerous under the AEMLD? and (5) Since federal law mandated
warning labels, have cigarettes been unreasonably dangerous under
the AEMLD?
United
States v. Richardson, No. 99-12328 (10/17/00): (per curiam)
Affirming the Defendant's sentence for possession of a firearm by a
convicted felon, the Court holds the District Court properly
enhanced the Defendant's sentence using U.S.S.G. 4B1.4 for armed
career criminals.
Oladeinde
v. City of Birmingham, No. 98-6665 (10/16/00): (Alarcon, J.,
by designation) On review of a final judgment following a jury
verdict in a Section 1983 First Amendment retaliation case, the
Court holds the Plaintiff's speech was not protected under the First
Amendment because the interest in speaking out was outweighed by the
Police Department's interest in maintaining order, loyalty, morale,
and harmony and thus reverses the District Court's order requiring
the City to promote the Plaintiff and grants judgment as a matter of
law to the individual defendants. This opinion contains a good
analysis of First Amendment retaliation claims asserted by public
employees.
Succor
v. Dade Co. Sch. Bd., No. 99-13681 (10/13/00): (per curiam)
The Court holds harassment inflicted upon an employee by a co-worker
with whom the employee had a consensual sexual relationship is not
actionable under Title VII using a hostile environment theory.
Williams
v. Pryor, 99-10798 (10/12/00): (Black, J.) Reversing and
remanding the District Court's permanent injunction holding
Alabama's ban on trafficking sexual devices unconstitutional, the
Court holds, (1) the statute passes rational basis scrutiny, (2) the
District Court properly rejected the Plaintiffs' facial challenge by
holding a fundamental constitutional right to use sexual devices
does not exist, but (3) remand the Plaintiffs' as-applied challenge
to the District Court.
Okongwu
v. Reno, No. 99-10157 (10/12/00): (Birch, J.) Reversing and
remanding the District Court's decision that it lacked jurisdiction
to consider an alien's habeas corpus petition, the Court hold
subject matter jurisdiction existed over the petition and remands
the personal jurisdiction and venue questions to the District
Court.
In
re Carbon Dioxide Indus. Antitrust Litig., No. 96-2704
(10/10/00): (Tjoflat, J.) Affirming a verdict in MDL cases,
the Court holds the MDL District Court has authority to try MDL
cases where the parties explicitly requested the MDL Court to try
the cases.
Neal
v. Fulton Co. Bd. of Educ., No. 98-9612 (10/6/00): (Marcus,
J.) Vacating the District Court's dismissal of a Section 1983 claim,
the Court holds a high school student stated a claim under
substantive Due Process arising from corporal punishment that was
intentional, obviously excessive, and created a foreseeable risk of
serious injury. The opinion (1) defines corporal punishment as "the
application of physical force by a teacher to punish a student for
some kind of school-related misconduct and (2) joins the majority of
Circuits holding excessive corporal punishment, where not meted out
in conformance with school policy, may be actionable under the Due
Process Clause when it is tantamount to arbitrary, egregious,
conscience-shocking behavior. Judge Edmundsen dissents without
opinion.
United
States v. Butler, No. 98-5686 (10/6/00): (Politz, J., by
designation) Vacating the Defendant's sentence for violating 21
U.S.C. 952(a) for importation of marijuana, the Court holds that
State sentences imposed to run concurrently with a previously
completed federal sentence do not constitute "imprisonment" for
purposes of imposing criminal history points under U.S.S.G.
4A1.2(b), comment (n.2).
