U.S. Eleventh Circuit - The FindLaw 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

August 2017 Archives

There once was a plaintiff from Sandy Springs,
Whose case was about some interesting things,
But as they got their sex toys,
Sad still were the boys,
That they couldn't drink at the strip club.

In a pair of, aptly called, provocative appeals, befitting of a blogger to write a limerick, Sandy Springs, Georgia, plaintiffs, Flannigan Enterprises, Fantastic Visuals, as well as some others in the local adult entertainment industry, are nursing their wounds.

One case centered around the Sandy Springs ban on the sale of sex toys, while the other case focused on the ban on the consumption of alcohol in businesses that have nude, or partially nude, live entertainment. While Flannigan and company lost both cases, and the subsequent appeals, the plaintiffs can rejoice in the fact that Sandy Springs at least repealed the sex toy ban on their own accord.

Consumers Can Partially Revoke Consent to Automated Calls

Wouldn't it be great if robocallers actually listened when you told them not to call?

That's what Emily Schweitzer was thinking when she filed suit against a credit card company for making robocalls to her at work. A trial judge dismissed her case -- because, after all, the robots weren't listening -- but a federal appeals court said she had a right to stop the work-hour calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

"In law, as in life, consent need not be an all-or-nothing proposition," the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals said in Schweitzer v. Comenity Bank. "[W]e now hold that the Act permits a consumer to partially revoke her consent to be called by means of an automatic telephone dialing system."

In a recent ruling out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel of three justices reversed the lower court's dismissal on summary judgment in the First Amendment retaliation case, Rodriguez v. City of Doral et al. The case involved the alleged constructive termination of a police officer due to his support of a rival political candidate.

The reversal is significant not just for the plaintiff, but for the entire circuit. In issuing its ruling, the panel of judges explained:

Trump Wins Another Judicial Appointment: Kevin Newsom for the 11th Cir.

President Trump may be losing some battles in the courts, but he is winning the war in remaking the federal judiciary.

The Senate handily approved the president's latest nominee, Kevin Newsom, for the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It marks Trump's fifth successful nomination, easily outpacing his recent predecessors in judicial appointments.

Barack Obama had no appointments in his first six months, and George W. Bush had only three in about the same time. The White House said Trump's success is due to political cooperation and "high-caliber nominees."

Based on a recent ruling out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, one seemingly rogue attorney, Austin Burdick, has failed in his quest for revenge against five Supreme Court Justices, specifically: Justices Kennedy, Breyer, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan. Burdick was claiming, and you may need to read this twice, that:

"...he suffered a concrete injury when the Justices 'rendered the Constitution a nullity' in Obergefell, preventing him from making certain arguments to 'protect his clients' constitutional rights' and depriving him of his interest in his law license."

As it might be expected, Burdick's implausible appeal of the sua sponte dismissal of his case was denied. The district court judge relied on Burdick's lack of standing to pursue the matter, in addition to the lack of a plausible claim.