U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, 1996

Lifecare International, Incorporated, a California Corporation v. Cd Medical, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, C.D. Medical, B v. a Dutch Corporation

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Decided May 31, 1996 · , Edmondson, Hill, Mills

85 F.3d 519; 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 13324; 1996 WL 287970 (Federal Reporter, Third Series)

Counsel

Daniel S. Pearson, Linda Ann Wells, Holland & Knight, Miami, FL, for Appellants., James B. Tilghman, Jr., Stewart, Tilghman, Fox & Bianchi, P.A., Miami, FL, for Lifecare International.

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Aegis Capital Corporation v. Cohen (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 2019)
Venus Lines Agency, Inc. v. CVG International Amer (11th Cir. 2000)
Venus Lines Agency, Inc. v. CVG International Amer (11th Cir. 2000)
Venus Lines Agency, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. Cvg International America, Inc., Defendant-Appellee-Cross-Appellant (11th Cir. 2000)
Scott v. Prudential Securities, Inc. (11th Cir. 1998)
Scott v. Prudential Securities (11th Cir. 1998)
Montes v. Shearson Lehman Brothers (11th Cir. 1997)
RHC Operating LLC v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (District Court, S.D. New York 2022)
Nautica International, Inc. v. Intermarine USA, L.P. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida 1998)
Eaton Vance Distributors, Inc. v. Ulrich (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997)
Wages v. Smith Barney Harris Upham & Co. (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997)
Tower Oak, Inc. v. Selmonosky (In re Selmonosky) (United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia 1996)

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

BY THE COURT:

The motion to recall the mandate filed by Movant Craig Edward Stein is GRANTED.

We modify and supplement our opinion in this case with this observation:

The statements by the Court in discussing the issues raised in this appeal concerning alleged bias on the part of Mr. Stein are based upon the record created by the parties to this case. As a nonparty, Mr. Stein was not entitled to present evidence or otherwise to respond to the allegations. Thus, the statements in the opinion should not be interpreted to represent conclusions of the Court about the actual conduct of Mr. Stein.

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