# Horace Luckey III v. Zell Miller, Governor

> Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · April 23, 1991 · 929 F.2d 618

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481491

## Case

- **Full name:** Horace LUCKEY III, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Zell MILLER, Governor, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
- **Decided:** April 23, 1991
- **Citations:** 929 F.2d 618; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17826; 1991 WL 42426
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Hatchett
- **Judges:** Dubina, Hatchett, Hill
- **Cited by:** 56 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481491

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that “findings of fact and conclusions of law by an appellate court are generally binding in all subsequent proceedings in the same case in the trial court or on a later appeal” (quotation marks omitted)
- noting that the doctrine “does not - bar consideration of matters that could have been, but were not, resolved in earlier proceedings”

## Opinion text

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority states that the purpose of the law of the case doctrine “is to establish efficiency, finality, and obedience within the judicial system.” Majority opinion at page 621. With the filing of the majority opinion in this case, “efficiency, finality, and obedience within [the Eleventh Circuit]” become meaningless utterances. According to the majority, one judge of the en banc court may (1) dissent from the court’s refusal to grant en banc rehearing on is *623 sues decided by the district court and a panel of this court, (2) write on a new self-created theory, not pleaded, not ruled on, not discussed, and (3) thereby nullify the actions of the parties, the district court, the panel, and the en banc court.
In the simplest terms, the majority holds that a judge on the en banc court, may not only review the district court’s rulings and the panel’s holdings, but, acting alone, may from the reviewed case give birth to a new case, based on grounds never thought of by the parties.
For the additional reasons stated in my dissent in Harris v. Luckey, 918 F.2d 888 (11th Cir.1990) (Luckey III), I continue to dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9481491. Public record. Not legal advice.