JOHN C. RAINEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA A. RAINEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, BEECH AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., AND PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; RONDI M. KNOWLTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD BRUCE KNOWLTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, BEECH AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., AND PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
JOHN C. RAINEY, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BARBARA A. RAINEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, BEECH AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., AND PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; RONDI M. KNOWLTON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF DONALD BRUCE KNOWLTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V. BEECH AIRCRAFT CORPORATION, BEECH AEROSPACE SERVICES, INC., AND PRATT AND WHITNEY AIRCRAFT OF CANADA, LTD., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
791 F.2d 833
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1986)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 28 cases
Opinion of the Court
Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, RO-NEY, TJOFLAT, HILL, FAY, VANCE, KRAVITCH, JOHNSON, HATCHETT, ANDERSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
BY THE COURT:
A member of this Court in active serving having requested a poll on the application for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this Court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,
IT IS ORDERED that the above-consolidated causes shall be reheard by this Court en banc without oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of en banc briefs. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
State v. Sterling Strong, Sr., 593 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…s necessarily established in a prior proceeding, or it may be utilized to bar subsequent prosecution where one of the facts necessarily determined in the former trial is an essential element of the crime presently charged. United States v. De-Marco, 791 F. 2d 833 (11th Cir.1986). A necessarily established fact has been held to be one which has been resolved in favor of the defendant at the prior trial and was essential to the conviction in said case. However, as the court said in Ashe, collateral estoppel…1 / 2
-
Mollie Everett v. State, 831 So. 2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…tes “to bar subsequent prosecution where one of the facts necessarily determined in the former trial is an essential element of the crime presently charged.” State v. Strong, 593 So. 2d 1065, 1067 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)(citing United States v. DeMarco, 791 F. 2d 833 (11th Cir.1986)). A pre-verdict acquittal based on a judge’s determination “that the evidence does not establish the fact of a crime” cannot be reviewed without violating the Fifth Amendment guarantee against double jeopardy. Hudson, 711 So. 2d at 2…
-
Jones v. State, 120 So. 3d 135 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…ts necessarily established in a prior proceeding, or it may be utilized to bar subsequent prosecution where one of the facts necessarily determined in the former trial is an essential element of the crime presently charged. United States v. DeMarco, 791 F. 2d 833 (11th Cir.1986). A necessarily established fact has been held to be one which has been resolved in favor of the defendant at the prior trial and was essential to the conviction in said case. However, as the court said in Ashe, collateral estoppel do…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence