Case law

Donna Jones v. Greg Ward

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2013

Jones admits that Ward was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority, so Jones must now show that Ward violated one of her clearly established rights. See Lewis v. … Therefore, the allegations in Jones’s complaint cannot establish a claim for malicious prosecution, and the district court was correct to grant Ward qualified immunity from suit.

Abella v. Simon Ex Rel. Miami Lakes Councilwoman

522 F. App'x 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 5, 2013

immunity. … The district court did not err by denying the officers’ motion to dismiss based on qualified immunity.

In Re Chase & Sanborn Corp.

835 F.2d 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 1988

from United States jurisdiction under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. … FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT 23 The United States follows the "restrictive" theory of sovereign immunity.

Alvarado v. U.S. Attorney General

610 F.3d 1311 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2010

The Government is correct that the statute clearly requires an alien to prove that he or she is qualified for voluntary departure. See 8 U.S.C. § 1229c(b)(1)(A)-(D). … But, requiring an alien to prove that he or she is qualified for voluntary departure speaks to what an alien must prove to be eligible, not when it must be proved.

Pen American Center, Inc. v. Escambia County School Board

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2025

This responsibility included the mandate that the “school board must adopt a policy regarding an objection by a parent or a resident of the county to the use of a specific material, which clearly describe … We held that participation as an amicus “[did] not qualify as participation for nonparty appellate standing.” Id. at 1319.

Shirley Solis v. CitiMortgage, Inc.

699 F. App'x 891 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

Solis’s complaint fails to establish that the defendants meet the FDCPA’s definition of “debt collector.” Although she stated that the “[d]efendants are debt collectors as defined under the . . . … This is clearly an act with “some relation to” a “judicial proceeding.” Levin, 639 So. 2d at 608. Therefore, as the district court found, Solis’s claim is barred by Florida’s litigation privilege.

Jodi-Kaye Sparkes v. City of Sunrise

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2019

The district court ruled that Officer Loor was entitled to qualified immunity. We affirm. I. … 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

Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John v. Florida Priory of the Knights Hospitallers of the Sovereign Order of Saint John

694 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 11, 2012

Vann — only one of whom was qualified as an expert in the history of the Order of Malta. … Third, a “witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if’ four conditions described in Rule 702 are established.

Kenneth Loggins v. Thomas

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that only the actual holdings of its decisions can “clearly establish[]” federal law for § 2254(d)(1) purposes. See Carey v. … All the international consensus in the world cannot establish that a state court judgment upholding a sentence was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined

United States v. Kaley

677 F.3d 1316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2012

We begin by emphasizing again that the Sixth Amendment right implicated here— the qualified right to counsel of choice — is a weighty concern. See, e.g., Powell v. … Subsequent case law clearly establishes that an otherwise valid indictment may not be invalidated even if the grand jury has considered evidence obtained in violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights.

American Trucking Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

688 F.2d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 1982

This is clearly incorrect for only one of the two restrictions on collective ratemaking is delayed until 1984. … Clearly, any change in the amount charged is merely a change in an existing rate.

United States v. Bobby Roy Dennis, Sr., Sharon Denise Cohen, Clarence Bobby Jennings, Brenda Jewell Hurley

804 F.2d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 1986

The Supreme Court stated that a defendant could establish a prima facie case of purposeful discrimination as follows: [T]he defendant first must show that he is a member of a cognizable racial group, Castaneda v. … The group of blacks generally clearly qualifies under this definition; appellants have failed to show, however, that black males constitute a distinct, recognizable subclass of individuals who have been singled out for different

United States v. Dean

635 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2011

The Supreme Court established in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747, 759-64, 102 S. Ct. 3348, 3355-58, 73 L. … The materials that Dean produced, for example, are clearly unprotected because they qualify as child pornography by documenting the actual abuse of a child and as obscenity because they appeal to the prurient interest,

Jellibeans, Incorporated, a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Skating Clubs of Georgia, Inc., a Georgia Corporation, Cross-Appellee

716 F.2d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 1983

Therefore, we accept the district court’s findings as not clearly erroneous. These facts establish that Jellibeans used its mark in interstate commerce sufficiently to invoke the .court’s jurisdiction. … In both of those cases, the court specifically qualified its insufficiency finding to the facts of the case.

Freedom Savings and Loan Association, Counterclaim/defendant v. Vernon Way, Jr., D/B/A Freedom Realty, Counterclaim/plaintiff

757 F.2d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1985

Heritage Life Insurance Co., 494 F.2d 3 (5th Cir.1974), the ability of courts to hear appeals on a de novo basis reflects a Congressional intent not to invoke the immunizing doctrines of res judicata or collateral estoppel … Fifth and Eleventh Circuit precedent establishes that the findings of the TTAB will control in a subsequent infringement suit unless the contrary is established by evidence that, in character and amount, carries “thorough

Chappell v. Rich

340 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2003

. §§ 1983 and 1985 because they could not establish that they had been denied access to the courts. … DISCUSSION Access to the courts is clearly a constitutional right, grounded in the First Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth Amendment, and/or the Fourteenth Amendment. Christopher v.

Levis Leon Aldridge, Cross-Appellee v. Richard L. Dugger, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Cross-Appellant

925 F.2d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1991

While this fact indicates that Strickland had transactional immunity, the prosecution allowed Strickland to mislead the jurors by saying he had only use immunity. … After reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous.

Howard v. McLucas

871 F.2d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 1989

This result would clearly be at odds with [the Supreme] Court’s and Congress’ consistent emphasis on “the value of voluntary efforts to further the objectives of the law.” … The district court’s finding that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of discrimination, Howard IV, 671 F.Supp. at 760-61 , was amply supported by the record.

Friends of the Everglades, Inc. v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2026

A preliminary injunction “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.” Siegel v. … a conclusion that is clearly unreasonable or incorrect.”

O'Ferrell v. United States

253 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

A fortiori, the District Court's further finding that appellants had not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that there was not a match was not clearly erroneous. b. … We there held that the government had immunity from claims of conversion and detention of personal property under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c).