https://casetext.com/case/beasley-v-burns-1
_____________________________________________
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-51_6647.pdf
_____________________________________________
https://uscivilliberties.org/3897-hale-v-henkel-201-us-370-1906.html
_____________________________________________
Adams v. Columbus Consol. Gov’t
Take care of legal research in a matter of minutes with CoCounsel, your new AI legal assistant.Try CoCounsel free
Opinion
CASE NO. 4:14-CV-303 (CDL)
07-22-2016
JEFFREY ADAMS, Plaintiff, v. COLUMBUS CONSOLIDATED GOVERNMENT, COLUMBUS POLICE DEPARTMENT, MAYOR TERESA TOMLINSON, TOM BARRON, CHIEF RICKY BOREN, ALTON BRUNDAGE, WILLIAM TURNER, TONY COOPER, JAMES POPE, RALPH DOW, FRED BLACKMON, LEMUEL MILLER, JENNIFER GARDNER, SHERMAN HAYES, JOSEPH BRIDGES, TRICIA WOLFLEY, JOSHUA BROWNLEE, JULIUS GRAHAM, DEBRA BAILEY, and RONNIE HASTINGS, Defendants.
https://casetext.com/case/adams-v-columbus-consol-govt
_________________________________________________________________
CA SHOW AUTHORITY CASE LAW
a) In Lofberg v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 264 Cal. App. 2d 306, 308, 70 Cal. Rptr.
269, 270 (1968) the court clarified that an Attorney may not appear without authority:
“An attorney may not even appear in a cause of action without some form of
authority from the party in whose behalf he appears.”
b) In Ventura County v. Clay, 119 Cal. 213, 215 (Cal. 1897) it was determined
that a motion to dismiss was proper because the suit was brought without authority:
“That a motion to dismiss was the proper procedure to take when the authority of
the attorney is challenged, there can be no doubt. (Turner v. Caruthers , 17 Cal. 432;
Clark v. Willett , 35 Cal. 534; Missouri v. Luce , 62 F. 419.) ”
c) In Title Insurance and Trust Company v. California Development Company,
168 Cal. 397, 401 (Cal. 1914) the court used the following language:
“The fact that an attorney appears on behalf of a party raises a presumption of
‘authority upon his part to do so.’ (Garrison v. McGowan,48 Cal. 592.) But this
presumption is disputable, and where it is clearly shown, as it is here, that the attorney
was not authorized, the party whom he assumed to represent can found no rights upon the
unauthorized act.”
d) In Clark v. Willett, 35 Cal. 534, 540 (Cal. 1868) the court held it may require an
attorney to show their authority upon the application of the opposing party:
“It has also been held that the Court may require an attorney to show special
authority, upon the application of the opposite party, when justice requires it.
(McKiernan et al. v. Patrick et al.)”
- Sullivan v. Dunne, 198 Cal. 183 (1926) – “The fact that an attorney appears
on behalf of a party raises a presumption of ‘authority upon his part to do so.’ But this
presumption is disputable, and where it is shown, as it is here, that the attorney was not
authorized, the party whom he assumed to represent can found no rights upon the
unauthorized act. ( Title Ins. Trust Co. v. California Development Co., 168 Cal. 397 [ 143
P. 723].)” - San Francisco Savings Union v. Long, 123 Cal. 107 (Cal. 1898) – “It is
always presumed, until the contrary appears, that an attorney is duly authorized to
appear for and represent any parties for whom he assumes to act. This confidence, which
underlies all judicial action in this country, rests not only upon a belief in the honor and
integrity of the attorney, but upon the fact that he is a sworn officer of the court. There
can scarcely be a more gross violation of the duty of an attorney than knowingly and
willfully to appear for and represent a party to an action without authority.” - Blanton v. Womancare, Inc., 38 Cal.3d 396 (1985) – “As a general
proposition the attorney-client relationship, insofar as it concerns the authority of the
attorney to bind his client by agreement or stipulation, is governed by the principles of
agency. (Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York v. Abraham (1945) 70 Cal. App. 2d 776,
783 [161 Cal. Rptr. 689].)”
“apparent authority is created, and its scope defined, by the acts of the principal
in placing the agent in such a position that he appears to have the authority which he
claims or exercises. If authority is lacking, then nothing the agent does or says can
serve to create it.”
Osborn v. U.S. Bank, 22 U.S. 738, 745-46 (1824) makes it clear that the Unauthorized
Attorneys and their firm cannot have authority without a Showing in the Records:
“A sufficient authority must be shown for the institution of every legal
proceeding. This principle is peculiarly applicable to suits brought in the name of
corporations; because, such a body must always appear by attorney, either to institute
or defend a legal proceeding.”
“It seems, also, to be intimated, that a Corporation may, by resolution, or other
act, not under their common seal, duly appoint and authorize an agent, whose contracts
would bind them; and the case of Rex v. Bigg, is referred to as authority. But, upon
looking into that case, it will be found, that the principle is merely laid down by counsel
arguendo; and the counsel, by whom it is advanced, add, “But in case of any thing of
consequence, or the employing any one to act in their behalf, in a matter which is not
an ordinary service, a corporation aggregate cannot do that without deed.”
“But even admitting that any express authority from the Bank, whether under the
common seal or not, would have been sufficient in the present case, it is indispensable
that such authority should be produced and filed. This has not been done, and
therefore it must be concluded, that the suit is wholly unauthorized by the corporation,
in whose name it has been commenced.” - _______________________________________________
The case you’re referring to is **Hale v. Tallapoosa County**. In this case, Larry Wayne Hale filed a **42 U.S.C. § 1983** suit, alleging that he was **beaten while detained at the Tallapoosa County Jail** due to the defendants’ deliberate indifference to an excessive risk of violence that existed at the jail¹². The jail was overcrowded, and fights between inmates occurred regularly during such times, sometimes resulting in injuries requiring medical attention and hospitalization¹. The court found insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference and causation, granting summary judgment for some defendants but reversing it for others¹. If you need more details, you can refer to the full case documents available online¹.
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 2024-05-25
(1) Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 – Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/hale-v-tallapoosa-county.
(2) Larry Wayne Hale, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tallapoosa County, a …. https://bing.com/search?q=Hale+vs+Talapoosa+County.
(3) Larry Wayne Hale, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tallapoosa County, a …. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/50/1579/542986/.
(4) 50 F3d 1579 Hale v. Tallapoosa County L | OpenJurist. https://openjurist.org/50/f3d/1579.
We asked Bing AI:
“To bring a viable claim for Relief under §1983, a plaintiff must assert that the act or omission was committed by “a person acting under color of state law.” Hale v. Tallapoosa County. 50 F 3d 1579, 1582 (11th Car. 1995); see also 42 U.S. Code § 1983. The “capacity to sue or be sued is determined by the law of the state in which the District Court is held…”17 Federal rules. thus Georgia law controls this case. Georgia law recognizes only three classes as legal entities namely one natural persons to an artificial person a corporation and three such quasi artificial persons as a law recognizes as being capable of to sue. Lawal v. Fowler And all the others. Sheriff’s departments and police departments are not usually considered legal entities subject to suit.” is a direct quote from a case and I need to find the case is it Brock v. City of Atlanta? Is there a pdf to this case?
Bing AI responded: The quote you provided is not from the **Brock v. City of Atlanta** case. Instead, it pertains to the **Hale v. Tallapoosa County** case. Let’s delve into the details:
1. **Hale v. Tallapoosa County**:
– In this case, Larry Wayne Hale alleged that he was **beaten while detained at the Tallapoosa County Jail** due to the defendants’ deliberate indifference to an excessive risk of violence at the jail.
– The lawsuit was brought under **42 U.S.C. § 1983**, which allows individuals to sue government officials or entities for violating their constitutional or legal rights.
– The court found **insufficient evidence of deliberate indifference and causation** for some defendants but ruled in favor of Hale against others¹².
2. **42 U.S. Code § 1983**:
– This statute enables individuals to seek redress when their constitutional rights are violated by someone acting under color of state law.
– It states that any person who, under color of state law, deprives a citizen of the United States of their rights secured by the Constitution and laws can be held liable in an action at law or suit in equity¹⁷.
Regarding the **Brock v. City of Atlanta** case, I found several cases with similar names, but none directly matching the quote you provided. However, I recommend checking the following cases for any potential relevance:
– **Fulton County v. City of Atlanta**: This case involves a legal feud related to real estate development on Atlanta’s Westside⁸.
– **Andrea Brock v City of Atlanta, Georgia**: A civil rights employment discrimination lawsuit filed against the City of Atlanta, currently pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit⁴.
– **Brock v. City of Atlanta Fire-Rescue Department**: Another civil rights employment discrimination lawsuit filed against the City of Atlanta, pending in the Georgia Northern District Court⁶.
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a direct PDF link for the specific case you mentioned. If you have any other questions or need further assistance, feel free to ask! 😊
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 2024-05-25
(1) Hale v. Tallapoosa County, 50 F.3d 1579 – Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/hale-v-tallapoosa-county.
(2) 42 U.S. Code § 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983.
(3) Legal feud reveals real estate gold rush on Atlanta’s Westside. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt–politics/legal-feud-reveals-real-estate-gold-rush-atlanta-westside/H5EmC7uqfOmFCg0EywoBeK/.
(4) Andrea Brock v City of Atlanta, Georgia – UniCourt. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-ap1-andrea-brock-v-city-of-atlanta-georgia-192005.
(5) Brock v. City of Atlanta Fire-Rescue Department – UniCourt. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-brock-v-city-of-atlanta-fire-rescue-department-1136153.
(6) Fulton County v. City of Atlanta – Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/fulton-county-v-city-of-atlanta.
(7) USA v. Brock, No. 23-3045 (D.C. Cir. 2024) :: Justia. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cadc/23-3045/23-3045-2024-03-01.html.
(8) Brock v. Hardman :: 2018 :: Supreme Court of Georgia Decisions …. https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2018/s18a0393.html.
(9) Brock v. City of Atlanta, GA (1:22-cv-00604), Georgia Northern District …. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta,.
(10) undefined. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta.
(11) BROCK v. ATLANTA AIRLINES TERMINAL CORPORATION (2021) | FindLaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-court-of-appeals/2116349.html.
(12) City of Atlanta v. Black, 265 Ga. 425 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/city-of-atlanta-v-black.
(13) Perry Golf Course Development, LLC v. HOUS. AUTH. OF CITY OF ATLANTA …. https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2008/a08a1231-0.html.
(14) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF …. https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/georgia/gandce/1:2010cv01847/167523/3/0.pdf.
(15) IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/files/201010571.pdf.
(16) Larry Wayne Hale, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Tallapoosa County, a …. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/50/1579/542986/.
(17) HALE v. TALLAPOOSA COUNTY | 50 F.3d 1579 (1995) – Leagle. https://www.leagle.com/decision/1995162950f3d157911414.
(18) 42 USC 1983: Civil action for deprivation of rights – House. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=%28title:42%20section:1983%20edition:prelim%29.
(19) What Is a “Section 1983” Lawsuit Against the Police? | Nolo. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-is-a-section-1983-lawsuit-against-the-police.html.
(20) Section 1983 – Civil action for deprivation of rights, 42 U.S.C …. https://casetext.com/statute/united-states-code/title-42-the-public-health-and-welfare/chapter-21-civil-rights/subchapter-i-generally/section-1983-civil-action-for-deprivation-of-rights.
__________________________________________________
I apologize, but I couldn’t find a specific case titled “Brook v. City of Atlanta” in my search results. However, I did find information related to two other cases involving the name “Brock” and the City of Atlanta:
1. **Brock v. City of Atlanta, GA (1:22-cv-00604)**:
– This case is filed in the **Georgia Northern District Court**.
– Unfortunately, the details provided in the search results are limited, and I recommend further research to understand the specifics of this case⁵.
2. **Andrea Brock v City of Atlanta, Georgia**:
– This case involves **Civil Rights – Employment Discrimination** and was filed in the **U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit**.
– The case status is currently **Pending – Other Pending**[^10^].
If you have additional context or specific details about the “Brook” case, please provide more information, and I’ll do my best to assist you further! 😊
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 2024-05-25
(1) undefined. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta.
(2) Andrea Brock v City of Atlanta, Georgia – UniCourt. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-ap1-andrea-brock-v-city-of-atlanta-georgia-192005.
(3) MUNICIPAL COURT OF ATLANTA P IMPROVEMENT S L A TASK Q FORCE P UBLIC. https://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/documents/404/31109/Atl-Muni-Court-Task-Force-Final-Report.pdf.
(4) Brock v. City of Atlanta, GA (1:22-cv-00604), Georgia Northern District …. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta,.
(5) Final Report on the August 14, 2003 Blackout in the United States and …. https://www.energy.gov/oe/articles/blackout-2003-final-report-august-14-2003-blackout-united-states-and-canada-causes-and.
(6) undefined. https://court.atlantaga.gov/.
(7) Legal feud reveals real estate gold rush on Atlanta’s Westside. https://www.ajc.com/news/local-govt–politics/legal-feud-reveals-real-estate-gold-rush-atlanta-westside/H5EmC7uqfOmFCg0EywoBeK/.
(8) BROCK v. ATLANTA AIRLINES TERMINAL CORPORATION (2021) | FindLaw. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ga-court-of-appeals/2116349.html.
(9) City of Atlanta v. Black, 265 Ga. 425 | Casetext Search + Citator. https://casetext.com/case/city-of-atlanta-v-black.
(10) Perry Golf Course Development, LLC v. HOUS. AUTH. OF CITY OF ATLANTA …. https://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/court-of-appeals/2008/a08a1231-0.html.
________________________________________________________________
Let’s delve into the case of **Maurice F. Brock v. City of Atlanta** and explore the available information:
1. **Case Details**:
– **Case Title**: Maurice F. Brock v. City of Atlanta
– **Civil Action Number**: 1:18-cv-04680-SCI-CMS
– **Date Signed**: August 19, 2019
2. **Synopsis**:
– Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a direct link to the **Final Report and Recommendations** by **Catherine M. Salmon**, the Magistrate Judge, for this specific case.
– However, based on my search results, there are related cases involving Brock and the City of Atlanta, such as **Brock v. Department of Transportation** and **Brock v. DOT Federal Aviation Administration**².
– For more detailed information or access to the specific report, I recommend consulting legal databases, court records, or seeking professional legal advice.
If you have any other requests or need further assistance, feel free to ask! 😊
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 2024-05-25
(1) Brock v. City of Atlanta Fire-Rescue Department – UniCourt. https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-brock-v-city-of-atlanta-fire-rescue-department-1136153.
(2) Davis v. City of Atlanta – Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/davis-v-city-of-atlanta-4.
(3) Griffin v. City of Atlanta, Civil Action 1:20-CV-2514-TWT – Casetext. https://casetext.com/case/griffin-v-city-of-atlanta.
(4) FILED DEC 1 5 2023 1fj- M. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-892/301003/20240221142557548_20240221-141849-00003273-00004311.pdf.
(5) Atlanta Journal and Constitution v. City of Atlanta Dept. of Aviation …. https://casetext.com/case/the-atlanta-journal-and-constitution-plaintiff-v-the-city-of-atlanta-department-of-aviation-angela-gittens-in-her-official-capacity-as-aviation-general-manager-city-of-atlanta-steve-baker-in-his-official-capacity-as-aviation-deputy-general-manager-ci-1.
(6) Brock v. City of Atlanta, GA (1:22-cv-00604), Georgia Northern District …. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta,.
(7) undefined. https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/43552980/Brock_v_City_of_Atlanta.
Freedom Dove 
Leave a comment