Arthur D. Rutherford v. James McDonough
467 F.3d 1297, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29401, 2006 WL 2956344
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided October 17, 2006·No. 06-10783·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinions
concurring:
My consideration of Rutherford’s claims are fully stated in my dissent to our prior opinion affirming the denial of Rutherford’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Rutherford, v. McDonough, 466 F.3d 970 (11th Cir.2006). I concur in the denial of Rutherford’s petition for rehearing because it fails to raise a matter that specifically affects the conclusion in the opinion that Rutherford’s complaint was dilatory.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Arthur D. Rutherford v. James McDonough, 467 F.3d 1297, 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS 29401, 2006 WL 2956344 (11th Cir. 2006).
467 F.3d 1297 (Arthur D. Rutherford v. James McDonough) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Henyard v. SECRETARY, DOC
543 F.3d 644 (Eleventh Circuit, 2008)
Schwab v. McDonough
521 F. Supp. 2d 1338 (M.D. Florida, 2007)