Case law

Judith Abramson, Donald Airey v. Larry Gonzalez, as Secretary of the Florida Department of Professional Regulation

949 F.2d 1567 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 1992

The plaintiffs clearly would enjoy no right falsely to hold themselves out as “licensed psychologists.” … Defendants do not claim any immunity under the eleventh amendment. Since we are not obligated to consider the eleventh amendment sua sponte, see Sims v.

Pamela Lewis v. City of St. Petersburg

260 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2001

Florida law, however, clearly recognizes a cause of action for the negligent handling of a firearm and the negligent decision to use a firearm separate and distinct from an excessive force claim. … This immunity is based upon the concept of separation of powers.

Doe v. Georgia Department of Corrections

245 F. App'x 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2007

The only order we review in this appeal is the denial of Defendants’s qualified-immunity-based summary judgment motion. 2 qualified immunity in Plaintiff-Appellee Charles … Defendants moved for summary judgment based on qualified immunity. The district court determined that Plaintiff had established a constitutional deprivation and that qualified immunity was unavailable to Defendants.

Justin Strolis v. Lucas Heise

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 2020

“Qualified immunity shields public officials from liability for civil damages when their conduct does not violate a constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of the challenged action.” Echols v. … ‘clearly established at the time.’”

Richard A. Bolt and Richard A. Bolt, M.D. v. Halifax Hospital Medical Center

891 F.2d 810 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1990

accordingly refrained from deciding the immunity issue and remanded the case to the panel with the instruction that we “reconsider [our] decision in light of the hospitals’ and medical staffs’ waiver of [state-action] immunity … Clearly, Dr. Bolt’s proffered evidence was relevant.

Dayna Christine Clawson v. Justin Rigney

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2019

Qualified immunity shields government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person … is not “necessary to ensure meaningful review of” the qualified immunity issue.

United States v. Robert E. Douglas, Jr., Noel Lussier v. United States

55 F.3d 584 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 21, 1995

The EAJA clearly applies to protect successful third-party in-tervenors in civil forfeiture proceedings. See, e.g., United States v. Certain Real Estate Property Located at 4880 S.E. … property and criminal offense established in criminal prosecution by showing "that a particular asset was not forfeitable [to begin with] under the terms of the statute"). 15 .

Chadrick Calvin Cole v. U.S. Attorney General

712 F.3d 517 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2013

The definition of “conviction,” however, clearly encompasses the SCYOA proceedings in question. … qualifies as a conviction for immigration purposes.

George Russell Curtis, Sr. Living Trust v. William F. Perkins

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2015

The trustee could establish those requirements through “the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness,” or by means of an out-of- court certification procedure established by rule or statute. … The bankruptcy court’s finding that IMA was a Ponzi scheme was not clearly erroneous. AFFIRMED. 15

Farley v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance

197 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 14, 1999

The jury instructions clearly explained what types of damages could be awarded for each cause of action. … These reasons clearly are legitimate non-discriminatory reasons on their face.

Michael Wade Nance v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison

922 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2019

Ct. 2842, 2858 (2007), he does have to have one that is close enough to clearly establish the law that he claims the state courts unreasonably applied. … They do not clearly establish the law that his claim needs. See White v.

Joseph Jimenez v. Acting U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2025

Home Care 3 Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional. FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475 (1994). … To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show: (1) he belongs to a protected class, (2) he experienced an adverse employment action, (3) he was qualified to perform the job in ques- tion

United States v. Albert Pickett

916 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 2019

Pickett argues that, in 2007, Florida battery clearly qualified under the residual clause and that it was uncertain at best whether it also qualified under the elements clause. … Because the parties had no occasion to address the requirement established by Beeman in the district court, a remand is appropriate. See Schumann v.

Michael J. Lepper v. Hiep Nguyen

368 F. App'x 35 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2010

plaintiff: (1) alleges facts that, if true, would constitute the violation of a constitutional right; and (2) shows that the right violated was clearly established). … The district court did not reach the clearly established law prong of the qualified 7  II.

Sims v. Florida, Department of Highway Safety & Motor Vehicles

832 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1987

In our review of Florida law, we have found no legislative enactment waiving the state’s sovereign immunity under the facts and issues in this case. *1570 The state of Florida asserted the defense of sovereign immunity in … Although we do not interpret Patsy as prohibiting this court from raising the issue of sovereign immunity, we do recognize the inequity in allowing the state to now assert the defense of sovereign immunity without affording

United States v. Rodolfo Maisonet

121 F.4th 194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 2024

A de- fendant qualifies for safety valve relief when five requirements are met, only one of which—the tell-all provision—is relevant here. … Under the statute, so long as a full debriefing occurs by the time of sentencing, the defendant may qualify for relief. We held as much in United States v.

United States v. Frank M. Howard

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 2014

In the alternative, he argues that the documents the government presented at his sentence hearing did not establish that his third-degree burglary convictions qualify as violent felonies under the ACCA even if the modified … The court then concluded that the documents the government had submitted, while not ideal, were enough to establish that Howard’s two convictions involved the elements for generic burglary under the ACCA and thus qualified

Doe v. Dekalb County School District

145 F.3d 1441 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 17, 1998

WHETHER DOE IS QUALIFIED In Arline, the Supreme Court considered whether a woman suffering from tuberculosis was otherwise qualified to be an elementary schoolteacher. … To establish a prima facie case under the ADA, Doe must prove that he has a disability; that he is otherwise qualified to teach psychoeducation, with or without some reasonable accommodation; and that he has suffered an

United States v. Charlie L. Green

969 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2020

Because we hold that RICO conspiracy does not qualify as a crime of * Honorable Robert L. … Therefore, RICO conspiracy does not qualify as a crime of violence under § 924(c)(3).

Cornelius Cooper v. Southern Company

390 F.3d 695 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2004

establish pretext simply by showing that [he] is more qualified than [Rutledge]. … Edwards has not offered evidence showing that he was “so clearly more qualified for the position than [Rutledge] that a reasonable juror could infer discriminatory intent from the comparison.” Id. at 1255.