WILLIAM T. CONNOLLY AND LIZABETH V. CONNOLLY, PLAINTIFFS, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
WILLIAM T. CONNOLLY AND LIZABETH V. CONNOLLY, PLAINTIFFS, APPELLANTS,
MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY, DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
861 F.2d 1233
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (1988)
Positive Treatment
Cited by 16 cases
Opinion of the Court
BY THE COURT:
Appellants’ suggestion of certification to the Supreme Court of Florida is DENIED.
Appellee’s motion for leave to file a response to the suggestion of certification to the Supreme Court of Florida is GRANTED.
The Petition for Rehearing is DENIED, and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing in banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing In Banc is DENIED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Se. Administrators, Inc. v. Moriarty, 571 So. 2d 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…review of any administrative decision made by a carrier in which the basic contention of the claimant is that he has been wrongfully deprived of benefits due under the act. Connolly v. Maryland Casualty Co., 849 F. 2d 525 (11th Cir.), reh’g denied, 861 F. 2d 1233 (1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1083, 109 S.Ct. 1539, 103 L.Ed.2d 843 (1989); Sullivan v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 378 So. 2d 350 (1979). Respondents rely on Lawton v. Alpine Engineered Prods., Inc., 498 So…
-
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 891 F.2d 810 (11th Cir. 1990)…eted by the Supreme Court in Patrick v. Burget, 486 U.S. 94, 108 S.Ct. 1658, 100 L.Ed.2d 83 (1988). See Bolt, 851 F. 2d at 1281-84. Our earlier decision was vacated, however, when the case was taken en banc. See Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 861 F. 2d 1233, 1234 (11th Cir.1988). At oral argument before the en banc court, the appellee hospitals and their medical staffs formally withdrew any claim that they were immune from antitrust liability under Parker’s state-action doctrine.12 The en banc court ac…
-
Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., 980 F.2d 1381 (11th Cir. 1993)…decisions are sufficiently probing to constitute “active state supervision” under Parker and Patrick. See Bolt I, 851 F. 2d at 1281-84. This earlier decision, however, was vacated and the case was heard en banc. Bolt v. Halifax Hosp. Medical Center, 861 F. 2d 1233 (11th Cir.1988). During en banc oral argument, the hospitals and their medical staffs formally withdrew their claim of immunity under the Parker state-action doctrine. Accordingly, the en banc court did not decide the immunity question and remand…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence