UNITED STATES FIDELITY & GUARANTY COMPANY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
PARK 'N GO OF GA., INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT

11th Cir. | 1996-08-29
No. 94-8989
Before HATCHETT and EDMONDSON, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON , Senior Circuit Judge.
92 F.3d 1561 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1996) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

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. AFFIRMED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 527 U.S. 423 (U.S. 1999)
    …tates 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). We granted Jefferson County’s initial petition for certiorari and remanded the case for further consideration of the question whether the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1341, deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to adjudic…
    1 / 3
  • Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 210 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2000)
    …district court judges of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, has been litigated in federal court. 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). The matter is once more back before us, again on remand fro…
  • Jefferson Cnty. v. Acker, 137 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 1998)
    …ted). On rehearing en banc, this court affirmed the district court’s ruling with respect to the intergovernmental tax immunity doctrine, stating that any holding with respect to the Compensation Clause was unnecessary. See Jefferson County v. Acker, 92 F. 3d 1561, 1576 (11th Cir.1996) (subsequent history omitted). With respect to the immunity issue, we concluded that although the privilege tax is measured by the income of the taxed individual, the taxable event is the performance of federal judicial duties…
    1 / 4

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw