Case law

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

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.

Cramer v. State of Florida

117 F.3d 1258 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1997

acting on its own initiative, should have stricken appellants' complaints and instructed counsel to replead their cases—if counsel could in good faith make the representations required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(b).13 The court clearly … Appellants Cramer, Kessler, and Arquette do not allege that they are "qualified individuals."

Everette Weaver v. David R. Ellsperman

589 F. App'x 481 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 17, 2014

established at the time Ellsperman engaged in the conduct complained of. … Absent such showing, Ellsperman was entitled to qualified immunity. As the District Court properly held, Weaver failed to make the required showing. 2

Jones v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

977 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 27, 1992

This finding was not clearly erroneous. On the retaliation charge the court stated: “Mr. … The trial court found that Jones failed to establish such a causal connection. This finding was not clearly erroneous. V.

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.

Brown v. American Honda Motor Company

939 F.2d 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1991

Honda's reasons for selecting Philip and Ashley Hughes were clearly legitimate and nondiscriminatory. … Departure from established procedures evident in this case is insufficient to support a conclusion of discriminatory intent. See Clark v.

Ramon Duran Guillen v. U.S. Attorney General

910 F.3d 1174 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2018

The Board found sufficient evidence in the records of Guillen’s convictions to establish that his convictions under the Florida statute were for possession of cocaine, qualifying him for removal. … The Supreme Court in Mathis described two hypothetical statutes that would fall clearly on either side of the line.

75 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 108, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1101, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 562 Bonnie E. Carter v. Decisionone Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, Through Its Agent for Service, C.T. Corporation System, Thomas A. Vassiliades, in His Individual Capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Bell Atlanta, Inc., Konny Light Mitchell, Movant

122 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1997

As such, she established and managed the new Microcomputer Repair Center in Atlanta. … It contends that she failed to establish a prima facie case because 1) she did not prove that the decisionmakers knew that she was over forty years of age at the time of her discharge; 2) she was not qualified to continue

James D. Ray v. The Tennessee Valley Authority

677 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1982

For a prior judgment to bar a subsequent action, it is firmly established (1) that the prior judgment must have been rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (2) that there must have been a final judgment on the merits … As this court recently observed: For a case to arise under federal law, a right or immunity created by that law must be an essential element of the plaintiff’s claim; the federal right or immunity that forms the basis of

Henry James HOWARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ROADWAY EXPRESS, INC., Defendant-Appellee

726 F.2d 1529 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 1984

The court reasoned: All that the plaintiff need do is prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was discharged from the position for which he was qualified “under circumstances which give rise to an inference of unlawful … Under Title VII, ‘a racially balanced .work force cannot immunize an employer from liability for specific acts of discrimination.’ ” Id. (citation omitted).

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.

Cordarius Benjamin v. Yamir Borrego

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2018

“Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is advanced[,] unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal … Nevertheless, because Benjamin’s second amended complaint did not allege the violation of a clearly established federal right, Borrego’s motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity should have been granted.

United States v. Najee Oliver

962 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2020

And this court, employing the Mathis analysis, has relied on state-court decisions even if they do not speak so clearly as the one in Mathis. For instance, in United States v. … indicted”—the part criminalizing the threat “to burn or damage property, with the purpose of terrorizing another”). 5 See Bryant, 832 S.E.2d at 830–31 (explaining that, under § 16-11-37(a), “the State must establish

Connor Durbrow v. Cobb County School District

887 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2018

The district court did not clearly err in accepting the ALJ’s finding that the School District representatives were more credible than were the Durbrows. See Owens v. … Connor’s neglect of his coursework did not establish a need for special education.

Eugene Steele v. National Firearms Act Branch

755 F.2d 1410 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 1985

Defendants Reno, Cruz, and Marcus were qualified to sign the form but refused to do so. Appellant alleged further that he could not obtain the signature of any other qualified signer. … Appellant’s complaint clearly alleged an injury in fact: Steele’s inability to sell the firearms that were part of his inventory.

In re Leonard

655 F. App'x 765 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 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 … We concluded that, “because binding precedent clearly classifies as elements clause offenses the convictions Mr.

Lester Mathis v. David Adams

577 F. App'x 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2014

Based on the latter argument, Mathis argues the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants and in determining that they are entitled to qualified immunity. … AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART. 1 We review a district court’s decision to grant or deny qualified immunity de novo. Bryant v.

United States v. Blue Cross/blue Shield of Alabama

999 F.2d 1542 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1993

The policies undoubtedly qualify as policies “under which ... the expenses of [health] services are paid.” 38 U.S.C. § 1729 (i)(1)(A). … The medigap policies issued by Blue Cross clearly operate to prevent recovery by the United States.

S & H Contractors, Inc., a Corporation v. A.J. Taft Coal Company, Inc., a Corporation, A.J. Taft Coal Company, Inc. v. S & H Contractors, Inc.

906 F.2d 1507 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1990

We conclude that this contract clearly provides for a transaction of an intrastate nature. … The facts clearly show that S & H’s services were not so connected to the sale.