Case law

Childers v. Floyd

625 F.3d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court.”11 Id. 11 “A state-court decision will . . . be contrary to [the Supreme Court’s] clearly established precedent if the state court applies a … whether the District Court of Appeal’s decision was contrary to clearly established federal law.

Booker T. Stafford v. Muscogee County Board of Education, Its Members and Dr. Braxton Nail

688 F.2d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1982

Later in October, 1977, Stafford began to pursue the grievance procedures established by the Board. He was accorded no relief under those proceedings. … Thus, Stafford’s claim that his resort to the grievance procedure established by the Board would delay the running of the limitations period is clearly foreclosed.

Su Qing Chen v. U.S. Attorney General

513 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2008

There is no question the forced abortions performed by the Changle City family planning authorities qualify as persecution. … Chen’s conduct as a guard at the family planning facility certainly rises to the level of culpability that qualifies as assistance in persecution.

Campbell v. Johnson

586 F.3d 835 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2009

Sheriff Johnson did not raise a claim of qualified immunity. … To establish a due process violation, Campbell must prove that Sheriff Johnson acted with deliberate indifference. See Tillman, 496 F.3d at 1327.

Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. New Life Art, Inc.

336 F. App'x 860 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2009

Moore and New Life Art’s (hereinafter “the Moore defendants”) counterclaim, in which the Appellants asserted fifty-nine affirmative defenses, including “sovereign, qualified, absolute, discretionary function immunity, … and state agent immunity.”

Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach

166 F.3d 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 11, 1999

When Lyes asked why she was not offered the position, she allegedly was told by a Board member that she was not qualified because of her sex. … conclude that it is clearly outweighed.

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.

Alan A. Peightal v. Metropolitan Dade County, Metropolitan Fire Department of Dade County

26 F.3d 1545 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1994

Significantly, the goals in the instant case were reviewed before each hiring year, and a new goal established, based upon the extent of underrepresentation remaining, the probable number of qualified minority applicants, … For example, in the instant case, goals were established for each hiring year. Similarly, in Cone, hiring goals were established for each project. Id. at 917. 22 .

Quiet Technology DC-8, Inc., Quiet Technology, Inc. v. Hurel-Dubois UK LTD.

326 F.3d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2003

Yet our caselaw plainly establishes that one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony. … appointing an [independent] expert witness, it is not an abuse of discretion to refuse to make that appointment.”). 14 This is not to say that the denial of a request to appoint an independent expert is immune

United States v. White

593 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2010

Garcia, 592 F.2d at 259 (5th Cir. 1979) (holding that smell of marijuana emanating from vehicle established reasonable suspicion for search)). … In dictum, the Court qualified the right to bear arms: “[l]ike most rights, [it] is not unlimited.” Id. at __, 129 S. Ct. at 2816.

Uboh v. Reno

141 F.3d 1000 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 1998

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the claims were time-barred, the federal defendants were entitled either to absolute or qualified immunity, and the allegations 2 Uboh initially … immunity.

Jorge Byron Alegria v. United States

945 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 1991

Additionally, the government suggests that it would be a violation of sovereign immunity to allow nonresident aliens to bring suit under § 7429 without the express consent of Congress. … Such a contention hardly qualifies as a rational basis. Indeed, it escapes this Court how the existence of an expedited hearing under § 7429 would encourage a nonresident alien to flee the country with his assets.

State of Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2021

Because such an injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic rem- edy,” we may not enter one “unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites.” Siegel v. … Florida has failed to meet its extremely high burden and clearly establish its entitlement to a preliminary injunction pending appeal.

Reginald Eugene Grimes, Sr. v. Officer Richard Rott

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2021

The district court granted the motion, finding that Grimes sustained de minimis injuries, and that the Appellee Officers were thus entitled to qualified immunity. … Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of

Richard Lee Brown v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

4 F.4th 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 2021

Thus, it was clearly erroneous for the district court to find that Rondeau failed to establish irreparable injury. … Unlike the first prong of the preliminary injunction analysis, where the landlords were required to clearly establish a substantial likelihood of success, the irreparable injury prong only requires the landlords to clearly

David Bryan Crespo v. State of Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2022

Because each of these claims are precluded by the defendants’ absolute or qualified immunity, and because there was sufficient probable cause to initiate criminal process against Crespo, we affirm. … So they are each en- titled to qualified immunity unless Crespo shows that (1) they vio- lated a federal statutory or constitutional right, and (2) the unlaw- fulness of their conduct was clearly established at the time of

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.

Onishea v. Hopper

126 F.3d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 1997

The court made two significant findings of fact, neither of which the plaintiffs have challenged as clearly erroneous. … And the district court did not clearly err in so finding here.

William H. Hamer v. City of Atlanta, United States of America v. City of Atlanta

872 F.2d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 1989

The panel found that the City had failed to prove that the test established job relatedness and said the following about business necessity: Thus while the City has a business necessity in ensuring that it promotes only qualified … It is clearly imperative that the best qualified candidates should be singled out for advancement to a position as important as fire lieutenant.

Norman E. Rowell v. BellSouth Corporation

433 F.3d 794 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 2005

Because the district court found that Rowell could not establish an adverse employment action, the court did not consider Rowell’s alternative argument that he could establish BellSouth’s legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons … Clearly, Rowell cannot show that Bell-South refused to consider relocating him.