Case law

Grant Danskine v. Miami Dade Fire Department

253 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

But Appellants’ physical ability data does not establish that the affirmative action plan was unjustified in 1994-97. … to be firefighters, or that only a tiny percentage of women are physically qualified.

Grant Danskine v. Miami Dade Fire Department

253 F.3d 1288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2001

But Appellants' physical ability data does not establish that the affirmative action plan was unjustified in 1994-97. … to be firefighters, or that only a tiny percentage of women are physically qualified.

Janice Akins v. Fulton County, Georgia

278 F. App'x 964 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2008

. § 1983 against Defendants John Gates, Vanessa Reynolds, and Fulton County, Georgia.1 In our previous opinion, we reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment, on the basis of qualified immunity, to defendant … established law.

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

702 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2012

There, both a Catholic order and a non-Catholic order were established, and this is where the groups diverge. Id. at 1294 . … See Angel Flight, 522 F.3d at 1210 . 14 *1293 In sum, the district court clearly erred in finding that Plaintiff Order fraudulently obtained its marks.

United States v. Reid

139 F.3d 1367 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify.

Ramon Badillo v. Janet Thorpe

158 F. App'x 208 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 1, 2005

No other courts may be established by the state, any political subdivision or any municipality. … “To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was excluded from participation in or . . . denied the benefits of the services,

Eskra v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance

125 F.3d 1406 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 27, 1997

, the inference is raised that discriminatory intent motivated the adverse employment action, and the burden shifts to the employer to "clearly articulate in a reasonably specific manner a legitimate non-discriminatory … However, Eskra has established a prima facie case of age discrimination. Provident does not contest that Eskra was in the protected age group and was qualified for the job.

Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Heckler

752 F.2d 555 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 1985

Under that law, paternity may be established after a father’s death by clear and convincing proof. Alabama Code § 43-8-48(2)(b) (1982). … The evidence before the AU showed that paternity was not established in a judicial proceeding prior to Mr. Hall’s death.

Deandre Markee King v. United States

41 F.4th 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2022

King says that, after Davis, conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery cannot qualify as a predicate for a § 924(c) charge. … Here, King clearly cannot show he is actually innocent of the foregone armed bank robbery charge because he admitted to doing so during his plea colloquy.

United States v. Hasner

340 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2003

Thus, the government established the required mailing element. 2. … We cannot say that the district court clearly erred by refusing to enhance Fisher’s base offense level for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1.

Tiffany Beckman v. Joe Hamilton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2018

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To avoid summary judgment based on qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show both that Deputy Hamilton violated a federal right and that the right was already clearly established -- given the circumstances surrounding Hamilton

James R. Leach v. Sarasota County Sheriff

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 2024

Qualified Immunity “Qualified immunity protects government officials performing discretionary functions from suits in their individual capacities unless their conduct violates clearly established … On appeal, Leach does not challenge these qualified immunity determinations.

Watkins v. Bowden

105 F.3d 1344 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1997

On appeal, this court found that Watkins "failed to establish that defendant Bowden violated clearly-established First Amendment law" and thus "reverse[d] the judgment of the district court only insofar … clearly established as a first amendment right and as a statutory right under Title VII; but no clearly established right exists under the equal protection clause to be free from retaliation"); Grossbaum v.

Covad Communications Co. v. BellSouth Corp.

299 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2002

Act does not provide an ‘implicit immunity’ from the antitrust laws.’ ” Law Offices of Curtis v. … An assess *1284 ment of intent is critical in determining whether an accused monopolist’s actions qualify as anti-competitive conduct. Id. at 106-07, 68 S.Ct. 941 ; accord United States v.

National Wildlife Federation v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army

721 F.2d 767 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 1983

HUD-Atlanta found that, under the best assumptions, the project might barely qualify as principally benefiting low- and moderate-income persons but that, under more realistic assumptions, the project would not qualify. … At least the second half of this conclusion is clearly erroneous.

United States v. Larry D. Barnette, Leo J. Barnette, Allied Management Corporation, Jets Venture Capital Corporation, Thomas F. Gibbs, United States of America v. Larry D. Barnette

800 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 8, 1986

Such expert testimony is clearly permissible. United States v. … The proof at trial clearly established a basis for the restitution order. The restitution order imposed as part of the sentence on Count 15 is vacated. The restitution orders imposed on all other counts are affirmed.

T.W. v. School Board

610 F.3d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2010

Because the district court concluded that the federal claims against Garrett failed as a matter of law, the district court did not decide whether Garrett was entitled to qualified immunity. II. … “[T]he constitutional concept of conscience shocking duplicates no traditional category of common-law fault, but rather points clearly away from liability, or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law’s spectrum

United States v. Dallas County Commission

904 F.2d 26 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 1990

Dallas County held a special election in compliance with our opinion. 3 In early March 1990, several individuals, contending that elections for the office of county commission should be held in November of 1990, sought to qualify … We clearly had authority to order such a remedy to redress violations of the Voting Rights Act. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1393 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Edge v.

United States v. John David Stahlman

934 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2019

‘qualify’ myself the opportunity to meet your lovely little lady?” … Carr is a qualified psychologist; Two, what little is known of Dr.

United States v. Daniel M. Edgar

304 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2002

At the same time, the Court 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). … The report also states that “the Federal Government clearly retains a strong interest in assuring the integrity of . . . program funds.” Id.