Case law

Keith Davidson v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A.

797 F.3d 1309 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

or due another qualifies as a “debt collector.” … To the extent that this allegation invokes the principal purpose concept, it is insufficient to establish Capital One’s status as a “debt collector.”

Anthony John Ponticelli v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2012

The district court ruled that the Supreme of Court of Florida reasonably applied clearly established federal law when it rejected the claims presented in this appeal. … This conclusion was compelled by what was then, and continues to be, clearly established federal law. See Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 368–70, 395–96, 120 S.

United States v. Vanston Venner Williams

865 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

Experts may be qualified by scientific training, education, or experience in the relevant field; they need not be formally educated to qualify as experts. Id. at 1260-61. … These concerns fail to establish that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony.

Morley's Auto Body, Inc. v. Hunter

70 F.3d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1996

Alabama A & M Univ., 28 F.3d 1146 , 1148-52 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc) (looking to Alabama law in holding that state university officials were entitled to qualified immunity in wrongful discharge case because it was not clearly … However, no comparable statutory provision governs wrecker rotation systems established by Florida county sheriffs.

Lucas v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

682 F.3d 1342 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2012

A state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established law if the state court unreasonably extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context. Jennings v. … Supreme Court has repeatedly held “that it is not ‘an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law’ for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the

Harvey v. Harvey

949 F.2d 1127 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 1992

The Eleventh Circuit recognizes three tests for establishing state action by what is otherwise a private person or entity: the public function test, the state compulsion test, and the nexus/joint action test. NBC v. … A county probate judge clearly is a state actor; so, if properly alleged, “the private parties conspiring with the judge were acting under color of state law; and it is of no consequence that the judge himself is immune .

Michael Smith v. Crisp Regional Hospital, Inc.

985 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2021

Marchant, in which we analyzed the language of the Act, clearly establishes that the focus of the Act is narrow: In prescribing minimal standards for screening and transferring patients, but not for patient … Thus, our case law is well established that the Act “was not intended to be a federal malpractice statute,” id. at 770, and “was not intended to establish guidelines for patient care,” id. at 773.

Hakim v. Moore

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2000

Brown, 71 F.3d 724, 730 (9th Cir.1995) (denying qualified immunity because requirement that prison comply with dual-name policy for mail was clearly established under Ninth Circuit standard); Salaam v. … immunity Hakim's claims against DOC officers in their individual capacities.

In re: Marckson Saint Fleur

824 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 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 Saint Fleur’s companion conviction for Hobbs Act robbery, which was charged in the same indictment as the § 924(c) count, clearly qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the use-bf-force clause in § 924(c

James G. Elrod v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, a New York Corporation, James G. Elrod, Cross-Appellant v. Sears, Roebuck and Co., a New York Corporation, Cross-Appellee

939 F.2d 1466 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

In order to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, Elrod must show that he is over the age of forty, that he was discharged, that he was qualified for the position from which he was discharged, and that a younger … Id. at 584 . 13 Elrod has met his initial burden of establishing a prima facie case.

United States v. Antonio Fernandez, Jorge Recarey, Mariano Villa Del Ray

892 F.2d 976 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 1990

The government advances two theories to establish an overarching conspiracy. … Recarey argues that he was prejudiced by the trial court’s refusal to give the jury a multiple-conspiracies charge, which was clearly error in light of our finding that the government’s proof established two conspiracies.

United States v. Keenan Joyner

882 F.3d 1369 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 2018

And the government never tried to establish that the car belonged to Joyner such that anything found inside the car could be imputed to him. … Stat. § 893.13(1), like Joyner’s, qualifies as a “serious drug offense” under the ACCA. United States v.

United States v. Robert William Green

842 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 30, 2016

Thus, the above facts clearly support the jury’s finding that Defendant was aware of the presence of the firearm and ammunition. … Nevertheless, even assuming that Florida battery under § 784.041 does not categorically qualify as a violent felony under the elements clause, it or the battery conviction under § 784.03 could potentially qualify under

Jeffery Haynes, Jr. v. James Volpelletto

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 1, 2024

“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.” … We conclude that Avant is not entitled to qualified immun- ity at the summary judgment stage.

H.K. Porter Company, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County, John Dyer, Individually and as Contracting Officer for Metropolitan Dade County

825 F.2d 324 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1987

Both the circular and the order encouraged all grant recipients to establish percentage goals for MBE participation. … As indicated, MDC in implementing the MBE provisions of contract Y-621, was relying on Congress’ legislative findings which clearly established that minorities were not participating in government contracts.

Caroline Croland v. Stephenson Camille

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 19, 2019

“Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which … To avoid summary judgment on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show both that Officer Camille violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established when Officer Camille acted. See id.

Brinson v. Raytheon Co.

571 F.3d 1348 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2009

JPATS was established to develop a unified system to train flight personnel from all branches of the military. … “Where the government merely approves imprecise or general guidelines, the contractor retains the discretion over the important design decision and enjoys no immunity against liability based on the Boyle defense.”

Burger King Corp. v. E-Z Eating, 41 Corp.

572 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

The letter informed the Sadiks that they were to cease operations at those two establishments and also to cease using any of BKC’s marks. B. … CONCLUSION In sum, we find that BKC was clearly entitled to impose its Value Menu on Appellants, and Appellants failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether they properly applied for an exception

Thomas Bruce Henley v. Todd Payne

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

But it ruled that Deputy Payne was nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because no Supreme Court or Eleventh Circuit precedent clearly established that his actions in February of 2016, when he made the arrest, were … Henley contends that the district court erred in conducting the “clearly established” analysis for purposes of quali- fied immunity.

Keelan Swint v. City of Carrolton, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2021

As for the officials, qualified immunity protects them “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would … The officials are entitled to qualified immunity.