Case law

Mijenes v. Commissioner of Social Security

687 F. App'x 842 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2017

Past Relevant Work Mijenes takes issue with the ALJ’s determination that her former job as a housekeeper qualifies as past relevant work. … If the ALJ chooses to assign less weight to a treating physician’s opinion, however, he must clearly articulate his reasons for doing so. Id.

United States v. Jose Manuel Abreu

406 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2005

Abreu, however, argues that the government failed to establish the reliability of the expert opinion. … Moreover, since district courts are given broad latitude in deciding how to determine the reliability of an expert opinion, we conclude from the record that the district court did not clearly err in giving greater weight

Thomas C. Pollgreen v. Raymond A. Morris, District Director of the United States Immigration & Naturalization Service

770 F.2d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1985

Finding that duress was clearly established in the record compiled before the agency and on the record before the district court, the court held that all fines be remitted and that the vessels be released free and clear of … and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be— (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Stephen G. Burke v. Timothy Bowns

653 F. App'x 683 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2016

Qualified Immunity Defendants invoked the affirmative defense of qualified immunity in their Special Report. However, neither the magistrate judge nor the district judge engaged in qualified immunity analysis. … Accordingly, we do not proceed to the “clearly established” prong on any of Plaintiff’s claims.

Carlos Ivan Vincente-Abad v. Timothy Sonnenberg

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2020

II “We review de novo a district court’s denial of qualified immunity,” Piazza v. … III A An officer seeking to assert a qualified immunity defense must first “establish[] that he was acting within his discretionary authority.” Bailey v.

Jefferson County v. Acker

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 1995

The judges are “officer[s] of the courts of the United States,” but removal of an action under this section requires the satisfaction of two additional requirements: (1) the defendant must establish a “causal connection … It based this ruling on two alternative grounds: (1) that the United States’ significant interest in the tribes qualified them for the exception, and a symbolic joinder of the United States would serve no purpose; and

Geeta Chhetri v. United States

823 F.3d 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2016

under 28 U.S.C. § 2680 (a) from the United States’ waiver of sovereign immunity for certain tort actions. … As such, the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity to be sued on tort claims related to that decision.

Jordan v. Wilson

851 F.2d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1988

He replied, “No, I don’t think she’s qualified to be a captain ... the only person who thinks she’s qualified to be a captain is Judge Thompson, and he has no responsibility for her actions.” … As discussed earlier, Pierce failed to demonstrate clearly that these statements constituted retaliation.

United States v. Schwartz

541 F.3d 1331 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2008

He clearly knew that First Capital was diverting investor funds to these purposes while he worked at First Capital. … FCS has established a verbal confirmation from American Credit Indemnity to replace that insurance.

Joshua Dickinson v. Sam Cochran

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

“Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’” … DISCUSSION “The defense of qualified immunity completely protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suit in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established

Lisa Baker v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2026

Second, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs had established that they would suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction because it was well-established that “[t]he loss of … established the burden of persuasion as to each of the . . . prerequisites.”

Susan Clark v. State of Alabama

141 F. App'x 777 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2005

Eakins also contended that he was entitled to qualified immunity because Clark had failed to show that he violated clearly established law. … “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from liability if their conduct does not violate ‘clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

Barber vV. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, & Helpers, District Lodge 57

841 F.2d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 1988

Those who are not fully qualified boilermakers — those in the union’s helper-trainee program — are usually paid less. … The union also argues that the evidence at the second trial that was within the mandate’s scope failed to establish the union’s intent to discriminate.

United States v. Michael St. Hubert

909 F.3d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2018

Meacham, 626 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1980), establishes that a district court is without jurisdiction to accept a guilty plea to a ‘non-offense.’” … While these decisions are relevant to our analytical approach, they did not involve Hobbs Act robbery or attempted robbery, or the use-of-force clause in § 924(c)(3)(A), and thus are not clearly on point here.

United States v. Sally Jim

891 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2018

The distribution payments cannot qualify as Indian general welfare benefits under 2 To qualify for this exemption, the Indian tribal government program must meet the following requirements: (1) the … Ct. 776, 777 (1944) (holding that an intervenor could not establish violation of an “independent right” sufficient to support an “independent appeal”).

Alturo Pasco v. Commissioner, Georgia Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2026

Finally, the magistrate judge concluded that because there was “no constitutional violation based on the facts provided,” the Prison Officials were entitled to qualified immunity. … Pasco did not, however, challenge the magistrate judge’s determination as to qualified immunity.

United States v. Isabel Rodriguez De Varon

175 F.3d 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 1999

Secondly, the burden is on the defendant to establish the minor or minimal participation. I would say [De Varon’s] statement standing alone is not sufficient to establish a minor or minimal level of participation. … Simply put, the drug courier may or may not qualify for a minor role reduction. See, e.g., United States v.

Christopher v. Cutter Laboratories

53 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 1995

Robinson’s entire testimony, including those statements that clearly were inconsistent with the allegedly invalid testimony, we hold that the district court did not commit plain error. B. … AIDS is transmitted by a virus known as HIV, which invades the body's immune system.

In re Colon

826 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2016

granted only if this Court certifies that the second or successive motion contains a claim involving: (1) newly discovered evidence that, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish … This is because Colon’s companion conviction for aiding and abetting a Hobbs Act robbery, which was charged in the same indictment as, and makes up the basis for, Colon’s § 924(c) count, clearly qualifies as a “crime of violence

Loggins v. Thomas

654 F.3d 1204 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that only the actual holdings of its decisions can “clearly establish[]” federal law for § 2254(d)(1) purposes. See Carey v. … All the international consensus in the world cannot establish that a state court judgment upholding a sentence was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined