Jeffrey M. Stein D.D.S. M.S.D. P.A. v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that an unaccepted pre-motion-to-certify Rule 68 offer does not moot a named plaintiffs claim because the unaccepted offer was “considered withdrawn” under Rule 68(b
• holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer cannot moot a case because “[g]iving controlling effect to an unaccepted Rule 68 offer . . . is flatly inconsistent with the rule”
• holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer cannot moot a case because “[g]iving controlling effect to an unaccepted Rule 68 offer . . . is flatly inconsistent with the rule”
• holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer cannot moot a case because “[g]iving controlling effect to an unaccepted Rule 68 offer . . . is flatly inconsistent with the rule”
• affirming that Zeidman, “a Fifth Circuit decision issued before October 1, 1981,” is also binding law in the Eleventh Circuit
• recognizing this as the law of the Eleventh Circuit

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).