Cheryl Maloof Johansen, Mildred D. Goldman, Oleeta D. Britt, Gregory B. Richard, Raleigh M. Long, Sr., Clarence E. Norman, Sr., Jerry L. Maloof, Lawrence S. Peeler, R. H. Beckum, Samuel Clary McGill Katherine McGill Lamar, Aubrey G. McGill Eugene H. McGill Jr., Elizabeth Bevel McGill James Curtis McGill Cherry McGill Rowland, Inez M. McWhorter Kathleen McGill Beggs, Walter Collins McGill as Administrator of A.C. McGill Estate and as of Lillian Inez Norman

Citation: 71 F.3d 884Docket: 94-8774

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; November 21, 1995; Federal Appellate Court

Combined Opinion AnalysisCombined Opinion SummaryCombined Opinion Original

Narrative Opinion Summary

The case involves multiple appellants, including Cheryl Maloof Johansen and others, who are associated with the A.C. McGill Estate and related parties, against the backdrop of a decision from the Southern District of Georgia. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit delivered a ruling on November 22, 1995, concerning the denial of rehearing en banc. The court's decision indicates that the panel's original opinion stands and that the request for further review by the full court has been denied. Specific details regarding the underlying issues, the nature of the appeal, or the legal arguments presented are not provided in this summary. The case number is 94-8774, and the relevant citation is 71 F.3d 884.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Rehearing En Bancsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit declined to grant a rehearing en banc, meaning the original panel's decision remains in effect.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit delivered a ruling on November 22, 1995, concerning the denial of rehearing en banc.

Finality of Panel Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues

Application: The effect of denying a rehearing en banc is that the decision made by the original panel is upheld without further review from the full court.

Reasoning: The court's decision indicates that the panel's original opinion stands and that the request for further review by the full court has been denied.