Hall Approved Free Access to American Case Law
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1994

Cannon v. Macon County

Cannon v. Macon County
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided March 7, 1994 · Anderson, Fay, Roney
15 F.3d 1022; 1994 WL 47955 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

John L. Cottle, III, Bowles & Cottle, Tal-lassee, AL, for plaintiff-appellant., Jock M. Smith, Tuskegee Institute, AL, for defendants-appellees.

Cannon v. Macon County

Cases that cite this one

4 later published cases cite this decision.

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

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

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

Before ANDERSON, Circuit Judge, FAY * and RONEY, Senior Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:

Upon 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:

The 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.

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

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

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