Case law

Lopez v. First Union National Bank

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 21, 1997

As we have recently had occasion to explain, when used in a statute, "the adjective 'any' is not ambiguous; it has a well-established meaning." Merritt v. … Clearly, a disclosure in response to a seizure warrant is protected by the third safe harbor.

United States v. Lucian Lamar Sneed

729 F.2d 1333 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1984

Defendant relies on these cases to establish the degree and length of underrepresentation necessary to satisfy the second prong of his prima facie case. … Those findings are supported by the record and therefore are not clearly erroneous.

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

683 F.3d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2012

App’x. 860 (11th Cir. 2009) (dealing with issues of immunity). 5 University’s Lanham Act claims.4 After discovery, both parties moved for summary judgment. … Finally, as noted above, the course of conduct of the parties with respect to the calendars establishes acquiescence. 33

United States v. Fernando Fernandez, Rafael Enrique Franjul, A/K/A Frank Sinatra, Defendants

797 F.2d 943 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1986

We hold that the independent evidence does not establish the existence of these conspiracies, the first James requirement. … The evidence also is sufficient to establish that Fernandez was associated with Cheo’s enterprise. IV.

United States v. Calvin Matchett

837 F.3d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2016

These decisions refute any suggestion that the existence of some obviously risky crimes establishes the residual clause’s constitutionality. … If a specific crime qualifies as a violent crime under the residual clause, it qualifies for all defendants, regardless of the individual factual circumstances of a particular defendant’s prior conviction for that crime.

David Davis v. Phenix City, Alabama

296 F. App'x 759 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2008

Given these findings, the district court correctly applied the test established in Pickering v. Board of * Honorable Richard W. … immunity after the deadline for amendment of pleadings and erred in granting qualified immunity to the two individual defendants prior to trial.

Hugh McGinley v. Stephen C. Mauriello

682 F. App'x 868 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2017

. § 1983 for denial of access to courts on an underlying wrongful death claim was barred by the statute of limitations and that some of the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … We affirm the District Court’s order granting summary judgment to the defendants on statute of limitations grounds and, therefore, do not reach the issue of qualified immunity.

United States v. Robert Petrie

302 F.3d 1280 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2002

Testimony from victims and members of the organization established that Petrie participated fully in the scheme and that he profited from it. … The district court did not clearly err in calculating the amount of money laundered given Petrie’s involvement in contacting clients and introducing them to the scheme to defraud them and his establishment of a company

United States v. Salomon E. Melgen

967 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2020

Melgen also argues that a sufficiently qualified expert under Rule 702 should have been required as a basis for entering the comparison charts. … Here, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the loss amount.

Beavers v. American Cast Iron Pipe Co.

975 F.2d 792 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 1992

ACIPCO’s policy, if it violates Title VII, is clearly a “continuing violation into the present.” … The record clearly establishes that none of these positions involve equal work, skill, effort, responsibility, or working conditions.

Davis v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

341 F.3d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2003

Although the trial court found that Broderick Swift stated that he would follow his gut feeling, the record clearly establishes that Swift never said anything during the voir dire that would indicate that he was unable to … established federal law.

FTC v. Randall L. Leshin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 2010

acceptance, Express was not qualified to conduct business. … The district court did not clearly err when it found that the defendants failed to comply with the laws of Florida, Georgia, Ohio, and Tennessee.

Nipper v. Smith

39 F.3d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

Those candidates may not represent perfection to every minority voter, but minority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground, the virtue of which is not to be slighted … The Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall “abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person

Jessica Graves v. Brandstar Studios, Inc.

67 F.4th 1117 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2023

See, e.g., Ramji, 992 F.3d at 1243–44 (holding that an employer was obligated to give an employee notice of her rights under the FMLA when she had clearly asked for sick leave to recuperate her injured … Kia Motors Mfg. of Georgia, Inc., 967 F.3d 1121, 1138 n.15 (11th Cir. 2020) (en banc) (“While close temporal proximity between the protected conduct and the adverse employment action can establish

CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. Echostar Communications Corp.

450 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2006

EchoStar does not contest that Cohen was qualified as an expert. Fed. R. … A prior “cookbook” had included interference, but the May 2000 and July 2002 “cookbooks” specifically and clearly omitted it.

Joseph Harold Johnson v. William French Smith, U.S. Attorney General

696 F.2d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1983

American International Franchises, Inc., 448 F.2d 680 (5th Cir.1971). 2 We affirm the decision of the district court because the decision clearly was a proper one on the record before that court. … However, the appellants’ concession in the district court of the critical fact establishing similarity of situation and the failure to proffer a rational reason for the disparate treatment received mean that Johnson has established

Jerome Calvert v. Clerk of Superior Court

152 F. App'x 820 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 6, 2005

Appellants argue the district court erred by denying qualified immunity because no clearly established law gave Appellants “fair warning” that the conduct set forth in Calvert’s complaint was unlawful. … We review de novo a district court’s holding that public officials are not entitled to qualified immunity because they violated clearly established law. Johnson v. Clifton, 74 F.3d 1087, 1090 (11th Cir. 1996).

In re Paradyne Corp.

803 F.2d 604 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 1986

Despite this clearly delineated and well established procedure to enable defendants to waive in open court their sixth amendment right to counsel free of conflict, 8 the district court below proposed to subject defendants … The second former "target” has not been granted immunity and remains under investigation.

Made in the USA Foundation v. United States

242 F.3d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2001

Rev. 250, 253 (1967) ("It is generally settled that under our Constitution international 'treaty' obligations can be established . . . … Unlike these cases, here there exists a clearly established record of pre- and post-NAFTA trade and investment activity on the part of the United States, Mexico and Canada, which also bears on their probable behavior in

Joyce Sharpley v. John Raley

153 F. App'x 624 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2005

to decision of the qualified immunity issue. … The "facts” as framed by the evidence at the summary judgment stage of a qualified immunity case may turn out not to be the true facts established at trial. See, e.g., Cottrell, 85 F.3d at 1486 ; Swint v.