Siegel v. Lepore, 00-15981
| Decision Date | 09 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-15981,00-15981 |
| Citation | 234 F.3d 1218 |
| Parties | (11th Cir. 2000) Ned L. SIEGEL, Georgette Sosa Douglas, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Theresa LEPORE, Charles E. Burton, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida(No. 00-09009-CV-DMM); Donald M. Middlebrooks, Judge.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before ANDERSON, Chief Judge, and TJOFLAT, EDMONDSON, COX, BIRCH, DUBINA, BLACK, CARNES, BARKETT, HULL, MARCUS and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
Appellants' Petition for Rehearing is DENIED.Judges Tjoflat, Birch, Dubina and Carnes dissent.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
39 cases
-
Pernell v. Fla. Bd. of Governors of State Univ. Sys.
...may cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest. Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Although a "preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy," it should be granted if "the movant 'cle......
-
New Ga. Project, Inc. v. Carr
...to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000).Discussion The Court first discusses Defendants' request for abstention under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 7......
-
Koe v. Noggle
...cause the opposing party; and (4) if issued, the injunction would not be adverse to the public interest." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1175 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (per curiam). The first two factors are "the most critical." Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed......
-
Shen v. Simpson
...lawsuit.II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD "[A] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy." Siegel v. LePore, 234 F.3d 1163, 1176 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (quoting McDonald's Corp. v. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (11th Cir. 1998)); see also Texas v. Seatrain Int'l, ......
Get Started for Free