Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

23 F.3d 369

Docket No. 93-9098.

Tomberlin v. United States

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 22, 1994.

Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1994-06-22

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently June 1994

1 federal appellate ·

3 counsel of record

Relies on Brown v. Nichols

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1994-06-22

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1John W. Denney, Allen C. Levi, Denney, Pease, Allison, Kirk & Lomax, Columbus, GA, for plaintiffs-appellants.

¶2Edgar W. Ennis, Jr., U.S. Atty., Hugh Randolph Aderhold, Jr., Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, GA, Vicki R. Crowell, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., Staff Judge Advocate’s Office, Fort Benning, GA, for defendant-appellee.

¶3John C. Sammon, President, State Bar of GA, Emmet J. Bondurant, II, John E. Floyd, J. Scott McClain, Bondurant, Mixson & El-more, Atlanta, GA, for amicus curiae State Bar of GA.

¶4*370Before EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6We are advised in this appeal by our decision in Brown v. Nichols, 8 F.3d 770 (11th Cir.1993), which was released after the district court’s decision in this case. The reasoning in Brown, a diversity case, also fits this Federal Tort Claim’s Act case. For that reason, the district court’s judgment dismissing the action is reversed, and this ease is remanded with instructions to permit the appellants to amend their complaint to attach the affidavit of Dr. William Hayes that they had proffered before judgment was entered.

¶7REVERSED and REMANDED.

/23/f3d/369 · .json · Public domain