Gabe Kaimowitz, Esquire, Qui Tam, Usa, ex rel. v. Orlando, Florida, Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, ("Onic")
Gabe KAIMOWITZ, Esquire, Qui Tam, Plaintiff-Appellant, USA, Ex Rel., Plaintiff, v. ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, (“ONIC”), Defendants-Appellees
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
No member of this panel nor other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Rule 35, Fed.R.App.P.; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
On panel rehearing, the- last two sentences (including footnote 7) of the opinion are hereby deleted, and the following sentence is substituted in lieu thereof:
For the reason discussed above, the record conclusively established that Kairnowitz was not entitled in this suit to the unrelated preliminary injunction he sought, and thus it was clear that an evidentiary hearing was not necessary.
The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED in all respects except for the foregoing-amendment of the opinion.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 22 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(“A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and (Doc. 1)
-
(“A district court should not issue an injunction when the injunction in question is not of the same character, and deals with a matter lying wholly outside the issues in the suit.”)
Cited by 50 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Erick Alaniz v. Howard Law Group, P.A. and US Bank Trust National Association
- Christopher Tavorris Wilkins v. United States of America
- Michael Eugene Grimage v. Captain Levai
- Alex Guy Gillis Thrasher v. Unknown VanNorstran
- Albert T. Owens, Jr. v. Correctional Officer S. Torres
- Shawn King v. Superintendent Tina Walker, SCI Fayette Superintendent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.