Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia

886 F.3d 1335
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia. Read the opinion of the Court — 875 F.3d 1036
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided April 6, 2018·No. 16-15764·Published

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The Petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc ( Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure ), the Petition(s) for Rehearing En Banc are DENIED. **

The opinion and decision in this case do not decide that physical evidence could never sufficiently contradict sworn, eyewitness, personal-knowledge testimony so as to justify a denial of summary judgment. The inferences that might be reasonably drawn from the pertinent physical evidence here, however, are insufficient to support plaintiff's theory about the shooting incident underlying this case. Plaintiff's theory projects too far past the limits of the evidence that he has actually presented.

**

Judge Williams would grant the motion for panel rehearing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia, 886 F.3d 1335 (11th Cir. 2018).

886 F.3d 1335 (Justin Hammett v. Paulding County, Georgia) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.