From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Randolph County v. Alabama Power Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 28, 1986
798 F.2d 425 (11th Cir. 1986)

Summary

stating that "we have subsequent to Monell continued to hold that a municipality has no cause of action under section 1983"

Summary of this case from Rural Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Wilson

Opinion

No. 84-7292.

July 28, 1986.

Francis H. Hare, Jr., John H. Lavette, James J. Thompson, Jr., Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellant.

James H. Miller, III, Birmingham, Ala., Sterling G. Culpepper, David R. Boyd, Montgomery, Ala., for defendant-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama; Myron H. Thompson, District Judge.

Before RONEY and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and NICHOLS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Honorable Philip Nichols, Jr., Senior U.S. Circuit Judge, for the Federal Circuit, sitting by designation.


Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc [2] (Opinion March 18, 1986. 11 Cir., 784 F.2d 1067).


IT IS ORDERED as follows:

On its own motion the court makes the following change in its slip opinion dated March 18, 1986. On page 2435 of the slip opinion, at page 1072-73 of 784 F.2d, delete the entire portion beginning with the words "The fact that public entities" through the sentence "We need add nothing more," and substitute the following therefor:

Although Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), undercut the rationale of Birchfield that a municipality cannot sue under section 1983 because Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167, 81 S.Ct. 473, 5 L.Ed.2d 492 (1961), held that it could not be sued, we have subsequent to Monell continued to hold that a municipality has no cause of action under section 1983. Applying County v. Municipal Electric Authority, 621 F.2d 1301 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015, 101 S.Ct. 574, 66 L.Ed.2d 474 (1980).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for rehearing and suggestion for rehearing en banc filed by Randolph County is DENIED.


Summaries of

Randolph County v. Alabama Power Co.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Jul 28, 1986
798 F.2d 425 (11th Cir. 1986)

stating that "we have subsequent to Monell continued to hold that a municipality has no cause of action under section 1983"

Summary of this case from Rural Water Dist. No. 1 v. City of Wilson

stating that “we have subsequent to Monell continued to hold that a municipality has no cause of action under section 1983”

Summary of this case from Pocono Mountain Charter Sch. v. Pocono Mountain Sch. Dist.
Case details for

Randolph County v. Alabama Power Co.

Case Details

Full title:RANDOLPH COUNTY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. ALABAMA POWER COMPANY…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit

Date published: Jul 28, 1986

Citations

798 F.2d 425 (11th Cir. 1986)

Citing Cases

Stitt v. Citibank

The district court's conclusion is consistent with New York and Alabama law. See Randolph Cty. v. Ala. Power…

Smith v. Sears, Roebuck Co.

McCausland v. Tide-Mayflower Moving Storage, 499 So.2d 1378 (Ala. 1986). Thus, the trial court, citing…