AT&T WIRELESS PCS, INC., PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF ATLANTA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

11th Cir. | 2000-08-25
No. 99-12261
Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
223 F.3d 1324 Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (2000) Positive Treatment
Cited by 40 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM:

PER CURIAM: We vacate our previous opinion, AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F. 3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), and dismiss this appeal because we lack jurisdiction. Our previous opinion vacated the district court’s denial of appellant’s motion for summary judgment on its 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 claims. After issuing our opinion, it came to our attention that the district court never disposed of AT & T Wireless’s substantive due process claims.

Hence, the district court’s judgment was not final. See Beluga Holding, Ltd. v. Commerce Capital Corp., 212 F. 3d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir.2000) (“To be a final judgment, the judgment must have disposed of all claims as to all parties.”). This was not a permissible appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court.

Therefore, we lack jurisdiction absent a final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292. We thus vacate our previous opinion and dismiss this appeal. OPINION VACATED and APPEAL DISMISSED.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By (25 total)

  • Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea, 129 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014)
    …l Univ., 830 So. 2d 120, 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Whether or not collateral estoppel applies depends on whether the federal court’s order denying Mr. Bollea’s motion for a preliminary injunction constitutes judicial finality. See Christo v. Padgett, 223 F. 3d 1324, 1339 (11th Cir.2000) (“It is widely recognized that the finality requirement is less stringent for issue preclusion than for claim preclusion.”); see also Miller Brewing Co. v. Jos. Schlitz Brewing Co., 605 F. 2d 990, 995 (7th Cir.1979) (stating th…
  • Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., Inc., 293 F.3d 1306 (11th Cir. 2002)
    …ing in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). “Under § 455, the standard is whether an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge’s impartiality.” Christo v. Padgett, 223 F. 3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1191, 121 S.Ct. 1190, 149 L.Ed.2d 106 (2001). Furthermore, “[t]he general rule is that bias sufficient to disqualify a judge must stem from extrajudicial sources.” Hamm v. Board of Regents, 708 F. 2d 6…
  • In re Ford Motor Co. v. Ford Motor Co., 471 F.3d 1233 (11th Cir. 2006)
    …c. v. Ashland Chem. Co., 93 F. 3d 176, 179 (5th Cir.1996); see also In re Justice Oaks II, Ltd., 898 F. 2d 1544, 1550 (11th Cir.1990) (stating that a “judgment must be final and on the merits” in order for res judicata to apply); Christo v. Padgett, 223 F. 3d 1324, 1339 (11th Cir.2000) (recognizing finality as a collateral estoppel requirement). While res judicata requires a final judgment, we clarified in Christo that the finality requirement for collateral estoppel is “less stringent.” Christo, 223 F. 3d…

Previewing 3 of 25 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw