Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Gabe Kaimowitz, Esquire, Qui Tam, Usa, Ex Rel. v. Orlando, Florida, Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, ("Onic")

Gabe Kaimowitz, Esquire, Qui Tam, Usa, Ex Rel. v. Orlando, Fla., Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corp., ("Onic"), 131 F.3d 950 (11th Cir. 1997)

Type: Opinion
Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: Federal
Date: 1997-11-20
Topic: litigation

How later courts describe this case

“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.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Gabe Kaimowitz, Esquire, Qui Tam, Usa, Ex Rel. v. Orlando, Florida, Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood Improvement Corporation, ("Onic"). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 46 opinions

KAIMOWITZ v. ORLANDO, FLORIDA,131 F.3d 950(11th Cir. 1997)

Gabe KAIMOWITZ, Esquire, Qui Tam, Plaintiff-Appellant, USA, ex rel.,

Plaintiff, v. ORLANDO, FLORIDA, Rick Bernhardt, Orlando Neighborhood

Improvement Corporation, ("ONIC"), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 96-2307.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

November 20, 1997.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

[1] No member of this panel not other judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the court be polled on Rehearing En Banc (Rule35, Fed.R.App.P.; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.

[2] 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 Kaimowitz 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.

[3] The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED in all respects except for the foregoing amendment of the opinion.Page 951