Legal Opinion · Dissent

Edison v. Douberly

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Decided April 30, 2010No. 08-15819Published

1DissentBarkett, Circuit Judge

The majority’s analysis is flawed because it conflates government contracting with government function. In doing so, the majority fails to recognize the extremely significant distinction between a private company that can lawfully perform a function without state involvement and one that cannot. It is simply not possible for any entity to lawfully operate a prison without authorization from and a contract with the state. Unlike hospitals, which can be operated on behalf of the government through a contractual agreement or can be operated independently, prisons can never be operated…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. YeskeySupreme Court of the United States · 1998
  2. Edward J. Petrus, M.D. v. Otis R. Bowen, M.D., Secretary of Health & Human Services, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1987
  3. Cox v. JacksonDistrict Court, E.D. Michigan · 2008
  4. Kornblau v. Dade CountyCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1996
  5. Doe v. AdkinsOhio Court of Appeals · 1996

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API