15 F.3d 1022 - Cannon v. Macon County — 15 F.3d 1022

How this case has been cited

Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Rodriguez v. Farrell (2002), Davis v. Hall (2004)

13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1John L. Cottle, III, Bowles & Cottle, Tal-lassee, AL, for plaintiff-appellant.

¶2Jock M. Smith, Tuskegee Institute, AL, for defendants-appellees.

¶4ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

¶5(Opinion Sept. 17, 1993, 11th Cir., 1 F.3d 1558)

¶6Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, FAY * and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges.

¶7PER CURIAM:

¶8Upon consideration of petitions for rehearing filed by Plaintifi/Appellant Mary Cannon and Defendant/Appellee Robin Collins, the Court orders that its opinion be modified in the following manner:

¶9The third and fourth sentences of the last paragraph beginning on 1 F.3d at 1564 through page 1565 are deleted and in their place are inserted the following quoted language from Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987):

The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful ...; but it is to say that in light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.

¶10 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 (citation omitted; emphasis added by this Court).

¶11Because the panel believes the opinion is correct in all other respects, the petitions for rehearing are denied.