Case law

Jimmy L. Hatfield v. Diana O'Neill

534 F. App'x 838 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2013

Defendant/Appellant Diana O’Neill (“O’Neill”) appeals the magistrate judge’s denial of her motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. … Clearly Established Law O’Neill also claims that in the event we find a constitutional violation, she is still entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right she violated was not clearly established

Turner Ex Rel. Turner v. United States

514 F.3d 1194 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2008

The district court clearly erred by concluding that the government’s argument lacked a basis in law. … However, we cannot conclude that the district court clearly erred in finding that, factually, Mr. and Mrs.

Marshall County Board of Education v. Marshall County Gas District

992 F.2d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1993

was three-fold: to reimburse the District for capital improvements to the gas distribution system made in past years with internally generated funds, to reimburse the District for depreciation of certain assets, and to establish … The plaintiffs clearly have a property interest in the money they own.

United Kingdom v. United States

238 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2001

Indeed, Judge Elwen expressly recognized this fact by qualifying the ruling as to discoverability and making it "subject to any claim as to privilege, immunity, or otherwise as may be asserted by those with possession of … We see no reversible error in the district court's implicit finding that Appellants failed to establish the particularized need required for disclosure of secret grand jury materials.

Florida Progress Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

348 F.3d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2003

The Commissioner argues that this was a factual finding, subject to review under the clearly erroneous standard. … For an item to qualify as an “ordinary and necessary” expense under § 162(a), that item must in fact be an “expense,” not a reduction in income.

William Earl Lynd v. William Terry

470 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 28, 2006

When there is only Supreme Court dicta addressing a particular question, a state court’s conclusion cannot be contrary to clearly established federal law. Williams v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000) (holding that dicta in a United States Supreme Court opinion does not constitute clearly established federal law); Henderson v.

Nelson M. Blohm and Joann M. Blohm v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

994 F.2d 1542 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1993

The court’s findings were not clearly erroneous. … The Blohms correctly state that Ritchey gave evidence “not presently available to the Grand Jury” in exchange for *1552 immunity from prosecution.

Judicial Complaint, In Re:

183 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1999

. § 1608(e) (1994) (prohibiting default judgment against foreign sovereign unless plaintiff establishes claim "by evidence satisfactory to the court"). … The last requirement of this exception is clearly met here, as the plaintiffs' underlying judgment against the Cuban Government related to a claim from which the Government was not immune by virtue of section 1605(a)(7)

Deron Devaughn Mahone v. Zachery Stewart

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2022

Law enforcement officers enjoy qualified immunity from civil damages for their discretionary acts when their conduct does not violate a federal statutory or constitutional right that was clearly established at the time of … If an officer makes a “reasonable mis- take in the legitimate performance of [his] duties [he] ought to be protected by qualified immunity.” Washington v.

Linda Gosa, Cross-Appellant v. Bryce Hospital, Cross-Appellee

780 F.2d 917 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1986

The district court was not clearly erroneous in these findings. … It is well established in this Circuit that “[t]he employees whose pay is the subject of comparison may hold jobs in succession as well as simultaneously.” Pearce v.

George Kelly, Cross-Appellee v. Jim Smith, Etc., Cross-Appellants

764 F.2d 1412 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1985

Defendants Jim Smith and Dennis Kelly (the city manager) also argue that they are entitled to qualified immunity since their conduct violated no established right of plaintiff Kelly.

Vernon Madison v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2014

After strikes for cause, there were thirteen qualified black jurors. The prosecutor then used six of his eighteen peremptory strikes on the qualified black jurors. … We held that the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals “reached a decision contrary to clearly established federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1) because the court increased Madison’s prima facie burden beyond what Batson

Michael E. Rowan v. James Harris

316 F. App'x 836 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2008

It is abundantly clear on this record that his nominal damages claim will not survive a qualified immunity analysis. See Dartland v. Metro. … Dade County, 866 F.2d 1321,1323 (11th Cir. 1989) (finding in analogous public employee’s speech context only the “extraordinary case” will result in a finding of a clearly established constitutional violation).

Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor

110 F.3d 1543 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1997

The speech at issue clearly implicates the First Amendment. … UVA allowed certain qualified student organizations to submit bills from outside contractors to the Student Activities Fund ("SAF").

John M. Ford v. United States of America, Robert J. Gibson, Jane L. Gibson v. United States of America, Guy W. Millner, Judith A. Millner v. United States of America, McNeill Stokes, Judy F. Stokes v. United States

989 F.2d 450 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1993

Section 46 establishes the amount of the credit. … Since all the expenses had been incurred during 1982, they were within the 60-month period. 9 The statutory language does not establish a rule that if the building will eventually qualify as being "substantially rehabilitated

Taylor v. Singletary

148 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 1998

to the extent established in the agreement itself. … He clearly did not take the stand in the Bancoshares trial involuntarily, and we believe the following excerpt from the state court’s pre-Kastigar hearing establishes that Taylor did not involuntarily enter the immunity

United States v. Philip Esformes

60 F.4th 621 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 2023

Fourth, we affirm the restitution amount as not clearly erroneous. … Esformes has not sought to establish that this finding is clearly erroneous.

53 Fair empl.prac.cas. 677, 54 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,038 Winston Nash v. The Consolidated City of Jacksonville, Duval County, Florida, a Municipal Corporation

905 F.2d 355 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1990

In Nash II, we again reversed, rejecting as clearly erroneous the district court's finding that the City had met its burden of articulating that the test was either job-related or a business necessity. … The district court correctly concluded that these statistics established a prima facie case of disparate impact. See 29 C.F.R.

United States v. David Thomas

676 F.2d 531 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 1982

We note that whether Markonni was qualified as an expert is essentially a factual determination that will be sustained unless clearly erroneous. Crawford v. Worth, 447 F.2d 738, 740-41 (5th Cir. 1971). … Here, though, we need not decide whether a witness can ever be qualified as an expert on the activities of drug couriers or whether Markonni was sufficiently qualified.

David John Thorkelson v. Carmine Marceno

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 2021

Qualified immunity shields government officials who are acting within their discretionary authority from liability when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … violation and, if so, (2) that the law, at the time of the official’s act, clearly established the unconstitutionality of that conduct.”