Case law

Karen L. Haven v. The Board of Trustees of Three Rivers Regional Library System

625 F. App'x 929 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2015

As the governmental entity invoking the Eleventh Amendment, the Library “bears the burden of demonstrating that it qualified as an arm of the state entitled to share in its immunity.” 3 See Woods v. … Although the district court dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based on Eleventh Amendment immunity, the court never analyzed or determined whether the Library met its burden of establishing

Banco Industrial De Venezuela, C.A. v. Credit Suisse

99 F.3d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 20, 1996

(BIV), referred to as a development bank, was established and is owned by the government of Venezuela. … It would, BIV claims, provide a sort of immunity to those defendants who conspire with bank employees.

United States v. Charles Allen Tuttle and Dean Frederick Vereen

729 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1984

The court rejected the challenge even though one division was underrepresented by 2 persons on an average 23 person grand jury panel. 661 F.2d at 443 . 5 The holdings in these cases clearly establish that the disparity argued … They also contend that the qualified jury wheel rather than the master wheel is the appropriate point of reference. 4 .

United States v. Robert Jenning

599 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2010

with evidence that Standridge was a knowing and willing participant in the scheme: Standridge owned fifty-one percent of MRIK’s stock and was its controlling person and as Brown’s testimony made clear, he and Standridge established … Touchet argues (1) he did not qualify for a three level enhancement as a “manager or supervisor”; (2) he did not qualify for a two level enhancement for obstruction of justice; (3) he did not qualify for a two level enhancement

United States v. David McLean

802 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2015

We recognized that the Supreme Court had “rejected the government’s contention that any funds distributed from federal coffers would qualify as benefits for purposes of the limitation established by § 666(b).” … This is clearly the case when the jurisdictional requirement is also a substantive element of the offense charged.” Id. (internal citations omitted).

Simmons v. Block

782 F.2d 1545 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1986

Simmons’ testimony reveals his belief that the government’s published terms were established in order to make credit bids equivalent to cash. … This court also has jurisdiction to hear the case because the order appealed from is clearly an injunction.

United States v. James Caporale, Alfred Pilotto, Seymour A. Gopman, Bernard Rubin, George Wuagneux, Salvatore Tricario, Louis C. Ostrer, and John Giardiello, Defendants- United States of America v. Seymour Gopman, Salvatore Tricario, George Wuagneux, Louis C. Ostrer, John Giardiello, James Caporale, Alfred Pilotto and Bernard Rubin, Defendants

806 F.2d 1487 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1986

Non-hearsay evidence clearly established that Fosco, Milano, Sr., and Milano, Jr., were members of the conspiracy. … has read the immunized testimony prior to trial.

United States v. $41,305.00 in Currency & Traveler's Checks

802 F.2d 1339 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 1986

As a practical matter, Cessna’s ability to protect its interest would clearly be impeded or impaired if intervention were denied. … We have reviewed the entire transcript and find none of the facts clearly erroneous.

Wright Ex Rel. Wright v. Hanna Steel Corp.

270 F.3d 1336 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2001

Wright clearly stated in his complaint, however, that he was seeking separate penalties with respect to each family member.7 Accordingly, Hanna Steel could have contested the power of the district court to award separate … Black’s Law Dictionary, 999 (6th ed. 1990). 9 “The term ‘plan sponsor’ means . . . the employer in the case of an employee benefit plan established or maintained by a single employer . . . .” 29 U.S.C

Starship Enterprises of Atlanta, Inc. v. Coweta County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2013

Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … If operated as stocked on January 26, however, the store would qualify as a sexually oriented business under the new ordinance and, as such, would not qualify for a general business license.

Federal Trade Commission v. Tashman

318 F.3d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2003

As for the first point, there is no “new business” immunity from the Federal Trade Commission Act. See, e.g., FTC v. Wolf, 1997-1 Trade Cas. … The district court’s legal conclusions are incorrect, and its findings of fact are clearly erroneous. III.

United States v. Robert H. Beard

960 F.2d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1992

Hauswirth, however, decided not to protect Beard and entered into an immunity agreement with the Government. … A careful review of the jury instructions as a whole, does not establish plain error. United States v.

James Darryl Flowers v. Fulton County School System

654 F. App'x 396 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

He asserts that the court improperly assumed facts not in evidence, erred in finding that qualified immunity barred his claims against the Individual Defendants in their individual capacities, and erred in determining that … Second, Flowers’s argument that the district court erred by dismissing his individual-capacity claims based on qualified immunity is misplaced. The court did not resolve any claims on the basis of qualified immunity.

Thomas Robinson v. Cole Lambert

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2018

Qualified immunity protects government officials if “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Next, we consider whether the violation of Robinson’s constitutional right was clearly established.

Murray v. Auslander

244 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 27, 2001

The present class definition includes participants in the Waiver Program "who are not receiving needed services under the Waiver for which they are qualified and eligible." … As a result, the class definition will more clearly reflect Plaintiffs' core claim for declaratory and injunctive relief from Defendants' alleged policy of "capping" the amount of money that they will spend on needed HCBW

49 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1105, 50 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,971, 27 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1453 Bernard J. Noble v. The Alabama Department of Environmental Management Director of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management

872 F.2d 361 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 2, 1989

A finding on the issue of intentional discrimination may be reversed only if it is clearly erroneous. Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 285-90 , 102 S.Ct. 1781, 1788-91 , 72 L.Ed.2d 66 (1982). … This Court has stated that, in the context of wrongful discharge, the factors are as follows: The plaintiff must establish that (i) he is a member of a minority; (ii) that he was qualified for the job; (iii) that he was discharged

Anthony Medina v. City of Daytona Beach

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

The officers’ alleged use of force did not violate Medina’s clearly established right to be free from exces- sive force. We affirm. I. … The district court granted the officers summary judgment based on qualified immunity.

Whitney Information Network, Inc. v. Xcentric Ventures, LLC

199 F. App'x 738 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2006

Whitney does contend, however, that Defendant Magedson could not have qualified for CDA immunity because he “submitted no evidence to establish himself as an ‘interactive computer service.’” … As Whitney produced no evidence to the contrary, Defendants argue, they were clearly entitled to CDA immunity and thus committed no tort for purposes of § 48.193(1)(b).

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Marshall Stranburg

799 F.3d 1324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 2015

In reversing the state supreme court, the United States Supreme Court noted that intergovernmental immunity did not extend tax immunity to property or gains earned by private persons under a lease of restricted Indian land … In both of these cases, the tax was clearly and critically connected to the services rendered.

Ronald Ellison v. Georgia Department of Community Health

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2022

heard was clearly established.” … To overcome the qualified immunity defense, Ellison had to allege that the state commissioners (1) violated a constitutional right, and (2) that the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.