Case Name: FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Deborah Lynn Cook, John Michael Webber, Toby Westfall, etc., Brian Knies, etc., David Reed, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Don Hunter, as Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1994-08-03
Citations: 27 F.3d 526
Docket Number: No. 93-2399
Parties: FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Deborah Lynn Cook, John Michael Webber, Toby Westfall, etc., Brian Knies, etc., David Reed, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Don Hunter, as Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 27
Pages: 526–526

Head Matter:
FIRST ASSEMBLY OF GOD OF NAPLES, FLORIDA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, Deborah Lynn Cook, John Michael Webber, Toby Westfall, etc., Brian Knies, etc., David Reed, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, Don Hunter, as Sheriff of Collier County, Florida, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 93-2399.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 3, 1994.
Mark R. Dolan, Largo, FL, for appellant.
Maynard W. Schryver, Naples, FL, for appellees.
Gregory W. Hootman, Cindy R. Galen, Elinor E. Erben, Sarasota, FL, for Collier County.

Opinion:
PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION OF REHEARING EN BANC
Before COX and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and CLARK, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM:
The petition for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion of Rehearing En Banc is DENIED.
However, our previous opinion reported at 20 F.3d 419 (11th Cir.1994), is hereby modified to add the following footnote to the last word on page 424:
5 We observe that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb to 2000bb-4, may apply to this case. However, since it was not raised by either party, we decline to discuss it.
In all other respects, our previous opinion remains in full force and effect.