U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1992

Taffet v. Southern Co.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided April 10, 1992 · Birch, Cox, Dubina, Fay, Hatchett, Kravitch, Tjoflat

958 F.2d 1514; 1992 WL 70572 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Eddie Leitman, Andrew P. Campbell, S. Lynne Stephens, Leitman, Siegal, Payne & Campbell, P.C., Birmingham, Ala., Richard H. Gill, J. Fairley McDonald, III, Copeland, Franco, Screws & Gill, P.A., Montgomery, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants., John A. Boudet, Jerry R. Linscott, Baker & Hostetler, Orlando, Fla., for Taffett & Fierman., Andrew M. Scherffius, Andrew M. Scherffius, P.C., A. Timothy Jones, Joseph C. Freeman, Jack N. Sibley, Freeman & Hawkins, Atlanta, Ga., for Taffet, et al., Larry Moffett, Jackson Henderson Chiles, III, Daniel, Coker, Horton and Bell, P.A., Jackson, Miss., for M.R. Taffett, et al., M. Roland Nachman, Jr., T.W. Thagard, Jr., Maury D. Smith, John P. Scott, Jr., Balch & Bingham, Montgomery, Ala., for Alabama Power., James E. Joiner, Hugh M. Davenport, Troutman, Sanders, Lockerman & Ash-more, Atlanta, Ga., for Southern Co., M. Robert Thornton, Michael C. Russ, King & Spaulding, Atlanta, Ga., for Arthur Andersen & Co.

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision. The 2 that cite it most often are listed here.

MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Best Telephone Co., Inc. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1994)
Cullum v. Arkla, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas 1992)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

PETITIONS FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, FAY, KRAVITCH, HATCHETT, COX, BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges.* BY THE COURT:

A member of this court in active service having requested a poll on the applications for rehearing en banc and a majority of the judges in this court in active service having voted in favor of granting a rehearing en banc,

IT IS ORDERED that the above causes shall be reheard by this court en banc. The previous panel’s opinion is hereby VACATED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.