Michael Pottinger, Peter Carter, Berry Young v. City of Miami

76 F.3d 1154, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1686
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
DecidedFebruary 7, 1996
Docket95-4555
StatusPublished

This text of 76 F.3d 1154 (Michael Pottinger, Peter Carter, Berry Young v. City of Miami) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael Pottinger, Peter Carter, Berry Young v. City of Miami, 76 F.3d 1154, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1686 (11th Cir. 1996).

Opinion

76 F.3d 1154

Michael POTTINGER, Peter Carter, Berry Young, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
CITY OF MIAMI, Defendant-Appellant.

Nos. 91-5316, 92-5145 and 95-4555.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1996.

A. Quinn Jones, City Atty., Leon M. Firtel, Asst. City Atty., Kathryn S. Pecko, Theresa L. Girten, Miami, FL, for appellant.

Kraig A. Conn, Nancy Ann M. Stuparich, Harry Morrison, Jr., Tallahassee, FL, for amicus curiae Fla. League of Cities.

Thomas K. Braun, Becky S. James, Frieda A. Taylor, O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, CA, for amicus curiae Nat'l Coalition for the Homeless.

Benjamin S. Waxman, ACLU of Florida, Miami, FL, Jeffrey S. Weiner, Miami, FL, Stephen J. Schnably, University of Miami Law School, Coral Gables, FL, for appellees.

Maria Foscarinis, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty.

William T. O'Neil, Covington & Burling, Washington, DC, for amicus curiae.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

Prior report: 40 F.3d 1155.

Before HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and FAY, Senior Circuit Judge.

INTERIM ORDER:

The panel heard oral argument in this case on January 24, 1996. After hearing oral argument, the panel is of the opinion that this case can be and should be settled.

The panel hereby refers this appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Conference Attorney for settlement discussions, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 33 and Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1.

The parties and their counsel are directed to contact this court's Appellate Conference Office not later than fifteen days from receipt of this order to explore a resolution of their differences.

Before settlement discussions, counsel for the parties must consult with their clients and obtain as much authority as feasible to settle the appeal. Counsel and the parties are expected to discuss all issues in good faith.

The conference attorney shall issue an order as contemplated by Eleventh Circuit Rule 33-1(d) or issue a report to the panel not later than April 15, 1996.

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

Related

Pottinger v. City of Miami
76 F.3d 1154 (Eleventh Circuit, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
76 F.3d 1154, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 1686, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-pottinger-peter-carter-berry-young-v-city-of-miami-ca11-1996.