1,000+ Cases found with keyword search

  1. McMillian v. Johnson

    101 F.3d 1363 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 65 times   
    Admitting that the language used was "confusing" in Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996), but that Tinney mandated that sovereign immunity apply to shield sheriffs from suit when sued in their individual capacities

    authority); See also Gill v. Sewell, 356 So.2d 1196 (Ala. 1978). But a recent decision by this court, Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996), holds that under Alabama law a sheriff and deputy sheriff

    shielded by sovereign immunity against claims based upon intentional torts. Some of the language in Tinney is confusing; the court says that "[u]nder Alabama law, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, in their official

  2. Sheth v. Webster

    145 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 1998)   Cited 120 times   
    Describing the holding in Tinney

    relief, afforded to certain state constitutional officers, including sheriffs and deputy sheriffs. See Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996). This constitutional officer sovereign immunity is pursuant

    qualified immunity for alleged federal constitutional deprivations, is immediately appealable. In Tinney v. Shores, this court concluded that, under Alabama law, a claim of state "sovereign" immunity (Article

  3. Godby v. Montgomery County Bd. of Educ.

    996 F. Supp. 1390 (M.D. Ala. 1998)   Cited 49 times   
    Explaining that even if Alabama state courts suffer confusion as to whether sovereign immunity attaches to sheriff's deputy in individual capacity for claims of intentional or malicious wrongdoing, the McMillian and Tinney holdings are binding and "a correct statement of Alabama law as far as this court is concerned"

    948 F. Supp. 1535, 1549 n. 53 (M.D.Ala. 1996) ("Similarly, this court is bound by Tinney, regardless as to whether Tinney is right or wrong under Alabama law."). The Defendants sued under this state law

    confusing at the state level, the Alabama Supreme Court has cited Tinney as a correct statement of the law. The Alabama decision implies that Tinney may be limited to suits against Sheriffs and Deputies. in other

  4. Adams v. Franklin

    CIVIL ACTION 99-D-815-N (M.D. Ala. Jul. 31, 2000)   Cited 18 times   
    Finding that state law claims seeking monetary damages from sheriff and deputies in individual capacities for assault and battery, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and outrage were barred by sovereign immunity doctrine, pursuant to Tinney

    "[s]ome of the language in Tinney is confusing." 101 F.3d 1363, 1365 (llth. Cir. 1996) Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit cited the following langauge in Tinney as "confusing" the [Tinney] court says that "[u]nder

    federal law the claim in Tinney was not one against the state. McMillian, 101 F.3d at 1364. However, despite the "confusing language" inTinney, the McMillian court established that Tinney was the law in this

  5. Byrnes v. DeBolt Transfer, Inc.

    741 F.2d 620 (3d Cir. 1984)   Cited 77 times   
    Following John Tinney decision as controlling, without additional analysis

    Teamsters Pension Trust Fund v. John Tinney Delivery Service, Inc., 732 F.2d 319 (3d Cir. 1984). On appeal, the Funds have devoted much effort toward persuading us that the Tinney court failed to make the proper

  6. Newsome v. Lee County, Ala.

    431 F. Supp. 2d 1189 (M.D. Ala. 2006)   Cited 7 times   
    Noting that "it does appear that Alabama courts are attempting to clarify this area of the law and to ameliorate the often harsh outcome that results when sheriffs and their deputies are immunized from malicious and intentional conduct," but concluding that "these decisions have not contained sufficient clarity to justify this Court's departure from the established position of the Eleventh Circuit," in Tinney, supra, and its progeny

    are entitled to State immunity and thus absolutely immune from suit on state-law claims. See, e.g., Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 383 (11th Cir. 1996) ("Under Alabama law, sheriffs and deputy sheriffs, in

    However, this Court need not be troubled by such uncertainty, because the McMillian court, applying Tinney, adopted an unambiguous interpretation of Alabama law, pursuant to which "a claim against an Alabama

  7. Blythe v. Blythe

    976 So. 2d 1018 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007)   Cited 8 times   
    Discussing Schneider Nat'l Carriers, Inc. v. Tinney, 776 So. 2d 753, 754 (Ala. 2000), and Hanner v. Metro Bank Protective Life Ins. Co., 952 So. 2d 1056, 1061 (Ala. 2006), and the requirements pertaining to a trial court's order purporting to certify a judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54(b)

    and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." In Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Tinney, 776 So.2d 753, 754 (Ala. 2000), our supreme court held that a trial court had validly certified

  8. Ricci v. DeStefano

    557 U.S. 557 (2009)   Cited 1,773 times   21 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that a city's making promotion decisions based on race would violate Title VII without a "valid defense"

    allies,” Lieutenant Gary Tinney, also exacerbated racial tensions before the CSB. Id., at 129a. After some firefighters applauded in support of certifying the test results, “Lt. Tinney exclaimed, ‘Listen to

    225a. Tinney also has strong ties to the Mayor's office. See, e.g., id., at 129a–130a, 816a–817a. After learning that he had not scored well enough on the captain's exam to earn a promotion, Tinney called

  9. Randolph v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Services

    453 F.3d 724 (6th Cir. 2006)   Cited 332 times   1 Legal Analyses   
    Holding that liability to facility attaches where coworkers sat idly by as plaintiff was subjected to multiple physical attacks

    be mere horseplay. Carpenter credited Smith's response and found Tinney untrustworthy, so she did not pursue the matter further. Tinney also reported the attack to Mike Logan, who was in charge of indirect

    At that time, Tinney also informed Logan that other food service workers had been continuously subject to verbal sexual harassment since the "horseplay" incident. According to Tinney's testimony, Logan

  10. Tinney v. Shores

    77 F.3d 378 (11th Cir. 1996)   Cited 130 times   
    Holding that the Supreme Court, in Soldal and other cases, "foreclosed" substantive due process claims under such circumstances

    failed to pay, the Tinneys received an eviction notice, and the landlord instituted eviction proceedings. On August 8, 1991, Appellants served Mr. Tinney with eviction papers. Mr. Tinney told them that the

    returned and informed the Tinneys that, over the telephone, a bank had given Shores a lien on the house-trailer and that the Tinneys were not permitted to move it. The Tinneys were not served with any official

Access all results
Casetext free trial sign up includes:
Unlimited legal research, no out of plan charges
Federal case law, statutes, and regulations
All 50 state case law and statutes
 CARA A.I. contextual search
Citator: Red flags on all overturned cases
Bankruptcy and PTAB
Unique databases: Holdings and Black Letter Law
How cited functionality
Customer Support