HAY

v.

LAZAROFF, WARDEN, ET AL.

Citator

Cited By

• United States v. Pease, 240 F.3d 938 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …hat therefore his guilty plea cannot stand. Whether an indictment sufficiently alleges a statutorily proscribed offense is a question of law which this court reviews de novo. United States v. Steele, 178 F. 3d 1230, 1233 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 933, 120 S.Ct. 335, 145 L.Ed.2d 261 (1999). An indictment sufficiently charges an offense if it alleges the elements of the offense and fairly informs the defendant of the charge against which he must defend; it must also enable the defendant to plead…
• Adams v. Fla. Power Corp., 255 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …ntent is clear and unambiguous, that is as far as we go to ascertain its intent because we must presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it said.” United States v. Steele, 147 F. 3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir.1998) (en banc), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 933, 120 S.Ct. 335, 145 L.Ed.2d 261 (1999). The language of the ADEA closely parallels that of Title VII. See Lorillard v. Pons, 434 U.S. 575, 584, 98 S.Ct. 866, 872, 55 L.Ed.2d 40 (1978) (noting that “the prohibitions of the ADEA were derived in haec…
• Johnson v. K Mart Corp., 273 F.3d 1035 (11th Cir. 2001)
  …34-35 (11th Cir.1997) (reluctantly following a prior panel decision even though it had overlooked a controlling statute), rev’d en banc, 147 F. 3d 1316 (11th Cir.1998) (overruling the erroneous prior decision that had bound the panel), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 933, 120 S.Ct. 335, 145 L.Ed.2d 261 (1999); Smith v. GTE Corp., 236 F. 3d 1292, 1303 n. 10 (11th Cir.2001) (“The erroneous result reached by the prior panel whose decision bound the Steele panel was corrected en banc, which is how erroneous panel decisi…