You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Fred L. Townley, Jr., Interantional Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local No. 623, Mark Lawson, President of Local 623 v. William Campbell, as Mayor of City of Atlanta, Eldrin A. Bell, Eugene Robinson, Kevin E. Lewis, as Officiials of City of Atlanta, City of Atlanta, Georgia

Citation: 86 F.3d 1172Docket: 94-8276

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit; May 20, 1996; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In the case of Townley v. City of Atlanta, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a denial of petitions for rehearing en banc on May 20, 1996. The case involves Fred L. Townley Jr. and the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Local No. 623, with Mark Lawson serving as its president, against multiple city officials including William Campbell (Mayor), Eldrin A. Bell, and Kevin E. Lewis, as well as the City of Atlanta, Georgia. The case numbers are 94-8276 and 94-8809, and it follows a prior ruling from the Northern District of Georgia reported at 82 F.3d 429. The court's decision reflects the conclusion that the panel's earlier ruling would stand without further review by the full court. The denial indicates that no substantial grounds were found to warrant a rehearing, thus upholding the previous court's judgment.

Legal Issues Addressed

Denial of Petition for Rehearing En Banc

Application: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied the petitions for rehearing en banc, indicating that the panel's earlier decision would remain unchanged and no further review by the full court was necessary.

Reasoning: The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued a denial of petitions for rehearing en banc on May 20, 1996.

Substantial Grounds for Rehearing

Application: The court found that there were no substantial grounds to justify a rehearing, thereby affirming the previous judgment of the Northern District of Georgia.

Reasoning: The denial indicates that no substantial grounds were found to warrant a rehearing, thus upholding the previous court's judgment.