Case law

Combs v. Plantation Patterns

106 F.3d 1519 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1997

Thus Hairston , our first decision on this issue following Hicks, clearly held that one way a plaintiff may succeed in establishing- discrimination is by showing that the employer’s proffered explanations are not credible … To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory failure to promote, a plaintiff must prove: (1) that he is a member of a protected class; (2) that he was qualified for and applied for the promotion; (3) that he was rejected

United States v. Everett Jerome Tripodis

94 F.4th 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 29, 2024

If the government had stated in the plea agree- ment that it would not recommend supervised release, the recom- mendation of the same would qualify as breach. … Therefore, the district court did not clearly err, and Tripodis’ claim fails. III.

Haynes Ambulance Service, Inc. v. The State Of Alabama

36 F.3d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 1994

Section 1395l (a) commands that the federal government shall pay 80% of the reasonable charges for Part B services; these reasonable charges are established by the Secretary pursuant to Medicare Sec. 1395w-4(b). … It is clear that the cost sharing provisions of Sec. 1396d(p)(3) include not only Part B costs but also Part A costs, and Sec. 1396a(n) clearly applies with equal force to both Parts A and B

DeeAnne Horn v. William Barron

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 2018

It is well-established that qualified immunity protects government officials unless they violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. … Whether a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law; in other words, whether the law at the time of the incident was clearly established so that a reasonable person should have known that he was

Thomas McCroden v. County of Volusia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 2018

Painter, the Officers, on the basis of qualified immunity under federal law and individual statutory immunity under section 768.28(9) of the Florida Statutes. … The burden then shifts to McCroden to show “that the official is not entitled to qualified immunity.” Id.

Gaskin v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

494 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2007

Under either standard the appropriate measuring stick is clearly established federal law, which means the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of the Supreme Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant … The clearly established federal law for ineffective assistance of counsel claims was set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984).

John Cottam v. Douglas Pelton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2018

officials engaged in discretionary functions unless they violate clearly established federal statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. … So the burden shifts to Cottam to show that qualified immunity should not apply because Pelton (1) violated a constitutional right and (2) that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. Garczynski v.

Jalen Bass v. Roland Jones, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2025

He also argued that he was entitled to qualified immunity because he had not violated Bass’s clearly established constitutional rights. … Qualified immunity protects a government official from suit in their individual capacity unless their conduct violates “clearly established statutory or constitu- tional rights of which a reasonable person

Gresham v. Windrush Partners, Ltd.

730 F.2d 1417 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 1984

court found that plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that defendants had acted in a racially discriminatory manner in their operation of Windrush Apartments, but that plaintiffs failed to establish … Therefore, the district court's finding is not clearly erroneous 3 In Bonner v.

Craig Williams vs Jeff Scott, Humberto Jimenez, Patrick Byrd

433 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2011

was not clearly established that he could be held liable for failing to intervene. … On these facts, the law clearly establishes that Jimenez could be held liable.

Luis Fernandez v. United States

114 F.4th 1170 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2024

Our holding cited and clearly rested on the ACCA’s residual clause. … Again, this holding clearly rested on the ACCA’s residual clause.

United States v. Oscar Martinez

320 F.3d 1285 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 7, 2003

According to the presentence investigation report ("PSI"), Martinez qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1 because he had three prior state felony convictions involving crimes of violence. … Martinez's contention that the district court improperly delegated the establishment of the payment schedule is without merit because the court established a schedule that required immediate payment. 15 Finally, there is

United States v. Shusta Traverse Gumbs

964 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2020

Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 19, at 147–51 (2012) (describing the series-qualifier canon). … The evidence clearly shows that Gumbs obstructed and resisted the officers who stood near his car at the time of the incident.

United States v. Dodd

111 F.3d 867 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 1997

However, his direct statement to Agent Bland, that he would go to jail for marijuana, could clearly raise the inference that his marijuana dealing was continuous. … The district court found that Dodd did not qualify for the reduction based on Dodd's continued denial of factual guilt.

Chandler v. Georgia Public Telecommunications Commission

917 F.2d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 1990

By not allowing either of the Libertarians to present their opinions with the other ballot-qualified candidates, the state of Georgia is clearly limiting the number of people who will be exposed to the Libertarians’ views … The state of Georgia has established an objectively neutral method of qualifying for the ballot — in this case, the Libertarians won at least 29,414 votes in the last statewide election.

Kennie Willett, Jessica Willett, a Minor Who Sues by and Through Her Father and Next Friend, Cross-Appellants v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Cross-Appellee. Ernest L. Roden, Sheila Roden, Cross-Appellants v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Cross-Appellee. Marvin A. Baugh Betty F. Baugh, Cross-Appellants v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama, Cross-Appellee. Rickey D. Silas v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama

953 F.2d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1992

The record does not clearly establish whether or not Willett obtained COBRA coverage, and the district court made no factual finding on this matter. … Silas therefore qualifies as a "plan participant," even though he was never entitled to vested benefits under the terms of the Mays plan. 29 U.S.C.A. § 1002 (7).

Otis Sims, III v. Lester Quilliams

378 F. App'x 945 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 10, 2010

rights, and the violated constitutional right was clearly established at the time of the violation. … favorable to the plaintiff establish a constitutional violation by the officers, and, (2) it was clearly established at the time of the incident that the actions of the defendant were unconstitutional.

Juan Llauro v. Detective Michael Linville

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

or that the Fourth Amendment right was clearly established at the time. … Defendants further argued that qualified immunity shields Detec- tives Linville and Valdes from the state law claims.

Cathleen Murray v. Charles Auslander

244 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 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

United States v. Four Million, Two Hundred Fifty-Five Thousand, Etc., United States of America v. Three Million, Six Hundred Eighty-Six Thousand, Etc.

762 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 1985

It was Ghitis’ burden to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the money had not been used in violation of the statute. … Congress clearly contemplated the forfeiture of property that once belonged to drug dealers, but subsequently was transferred, via “legitimate transactions,” to third parties.