At&T Wireless Pcs, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Atlanta, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 223 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2000)

Federal Circuits, 11th Cir. (September 07, 2000)

Docket number: 99-12261


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/wireless-pcs-city-atlanta-defendants-37800914
Id. vLex: VLEX-37800914

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - ATandT Wireless PCS Inc. v. City of Atlanta (11th Cir. 2001)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - At&T Wireless Pcs, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Atlanta, Atlanta City Council, Et Al., Defendants-Appellees., 250 F.3d 1307 (11th Cir. 2001)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Cassandra Williams v. State of Alabama Board of Ed (11th Cir. 2006)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Cir. - In re. Lonnie E. McKinney (7th Cir. 2006)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - USA v. Michael Spuza (11th Cir. 2006)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Menachem Pri-Har v. Corrections Corp. of America (11th Cir. 2005)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Eastman Kodak Co. v. Atlanta Retail, Inc. (11th Cir. 2006)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Patricia Dzikowski v. Northern Trust Bank of Fla. (11th Cir. 2007)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Cir. - TN v. Chattanooga (6th Cir. 2005)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Cir. - Marie O. Pedraza, on Behalf of Herself and all Other Persons Similarly Situated, Et Al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. United Guaranty Corporation, United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company, Defendants, Joshua O. Olorunnisomo, Movant-Appellant., 313 F.3d 1323 (11th Cir. 2002)

Text:

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.(No. 98-00962-1-CV-JEC), Julie E. Carnes, Judge.

Before CARNES, BARKETT and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

We vacate our previous opinion, AT&T Wireless PCS, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 210 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000), and dismiss this appeal because we lack jurisdiction.

Our previous opinion vacated the district court's denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment on its 42 U.S.C. 1983 and 1988 claims. After issuing our opinion, it came to our attention that the district court never disposed of AT & T Wireless's substantive due process claims. Hence, the district court's judgment was not final. See Beluga Holding, Ltd. v. Commerce Capital Corp., 212 F.3d 1199, 1200 (11th Cir.2000) ("To be a final judgment, the judgment must have disposed of all claims as to all parties.").

This was not a permissible appeal from an interlocutory order of the district court. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction absent a final judgment. See 28 U.S.C. 1291 and 1292. We thus vacate our previous opinion and dismiss this appeal.

OPINION VACATED and APPEAL DISMISSED

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access