Case law

Tim Powell v. Alabama Credit Union Administration

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 2020

Moore’s Qualified Immunity Plaintiffs next challenge the court’s decision that Moore is entitled to qualified immunity. … And, to the extent this is an issue of first impression, Moore is “almost certainly entitled to qualified immunity, since there is rarely a clearly established violation of law in the absence of supporting case law.”

Betty Anderson, and Naacp, Intervening v. City of Alpharetta

770 F.2d 1575 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1985

In a December 30, 1982, order, Judge Forrester clearly indicated his concern that this “public interest” case be tried with a plaintiff representing black interests and almost as clearly indicated his concern that the solutions … Ct. 1123, does not establish the eligibility of any of the individuals for public housing if it were constructed on that site, see NAACP v.

United States v. Banks

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 1997

clearly imposing it," E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. … Jurisdictional Wetlands Banks also disputes that his lots qualify as jurisdictional wetlands.

Janet Barr v. David Denmark

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 4, 2024

They further argued that they were entitled to qualified im- munity on Barr’s section 1983 claims and that statutory immunity barred her state law false arrest claim. … The district court dis- missed the federal claims for failure to state a claim and because of qualified immunity.

Elizabeth D. Duncan v. David B. Poythress

777 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 1985

Establishing Kathleen Kessler’s status as attorney for herself, in the district court or in the Supreme Court, or both, is a prerequisite for decision of the attorney fee issue. … In the most general sense this term denotes an agent or substitute, or one who is appointed and authorized to act in the place or stead of another____ In its most common usage, however, unless a contrary meaning is clearly

United States v. McCarty

99 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

To qualify for an offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1 of the sentencing guidelines, a defendant bears the burden of establishing entitlement by clearly demonstrating acceptance of … moving to withdraw a guilty plea may not automatically preclude offense level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, that the district court weighed McCarty's inconsistent testimony before concluding he had not clearly

Stephens v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

678 F.3d 1219 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 1, 2012

We therefore cannot find that the Florida Supreme Court’s application of clearly established federal law was unreasonable in this case. B. … We cannot say that this conclusion was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

McGahee v. Alabama Department of Corrections

560 F.3d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2009

We hold that the Alabama state courts unreasonably applied clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court. … The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals’ decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established law because that court failed to follow clearly established law in the third step of Batson when it did not consider

Shahar v. Bowers

70 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1995

In his answer, the Attorney General pled qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to Shahar's prayers for money damages. … Because an individual seeking to overcome qualified immunity must show that an official has violated clearly established law, the Sims majority held that the plaintiff in that case had to make the extraordinary showing

Ella McCruter v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary of Health and Human Services

791 F.2d 1544 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 1986

In other words, the Secretary does not have power to establish additional requirements over and above what Congress has specified. … This is clearly explained in a recent Fifth Circuit case, Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d 1099, 1103-1105 (5th Cir.1985), which cites and follows our own case of Brady v.

United States v. Secretary Florida Agency for Health Care Administration

938 F.3d 1221 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2019

It “clearly provide[d] that other means of action, even if not mentioned in the Act, are to be preserved.” Id. at 612. … Dist., 625 F.2d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 451 U.S. 910 (1981), clearly established.

United States v. Cristian Ponce

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2026

. § 2A1.2 (relating to second-degree murder) because it determined that Ponce’s offense circumstances would qualify as murder under federal law. Why? … He maintains that Santiago establishes that the district court clearly errs when, as here, it fails to consider a defendant’s claim of self-defense before applying the murder cross-reference in § 2D1.1

Daniel J. Stermer v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 24, 2025

A trial court abuses its discretion if it misapplies the law, fails to follow required procedure, bases its decision on clearly erroneous facts, or clearly errs in judgment. United States v. … Here, ATFS does not qualify as the Debtor’s successor in in- terest under the de facto merger or mere continuation theories.

Barry Richardson v. Dougherty County, GA

185 F. App'x 785 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2006

Although Richardson alleged that he was denied a promotion, for which he was qualified, and the successful candidate for the promotion was outside of his protected class, that evidence was not enough to establish a prima … Richardson failed to present evidence that the selected 10 candidate was equally or less qualified for the job. Id. at 1089.

Howard Paul Levy v. U.S. Attorney General

882 F.3d 1364 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 22, 2018

The clause does not require that a child be born into wedlock: a child born out of wedlock whose parents later marry and legally separate qualifies under § 1432(a)(3). … That rationale is reflected most clearly in § 1432(a)(2), where the non-naturalizing parent is deceased. But it also animates § 1432(a)(3), both clauses of which safeguard an alien parent’s rights.

Sicar v. Chertoff

541 F.3d 1055 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2008

Thus, the court found, Appellants had not established any of the three standing requirements: injury in fact, causation, or redressibility. … The district court clearly read Appellants’ complaint as alleging their injury to be the denial of status adjustments under § 902(b).

Adem A. Albra v. City of Fort Lauderdale

232 F. App'x 885 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 2007

Claims 1, 2, and 7 – State Law Claims Although the State of Florida and its municipalities are generally immune from tort liability, Florida has waived its sovereign immunity “under circumstances in which the state … Thus, Albra failed to establish any causal connection between the officers’ refusal to investigate his claim and his illness.

Donato Dalrymple v. United States

460 F.3d 1318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2006

Lack of jurisdiction 8  The FTCA provides a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity for tort claims. Suarez v. … Additionally, the trial plaintiffs contend that the district court’s findings of fact that the Israeli gas gun contained oleoresin capsicum (“OC spray”), or pepper spray, are clearly erroneous because the parties agreed

Pacific and Southern Company, Inc., D/B/A Wxia-Tv, Cross v. Carol Duncan, D/B/A Tv News Clips, Cross-Appellee

744 F.2d 1490 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 7, 1984

Yet despite finding that TV News Clips had clearly violated WXIA’s copyright, the district court denied the request for an injunction for three reasons. … The fact that a court must make some difficult judgments should not prevent it from effectuating established legal rights.

Salsbury Laboratories, Inc. v. Merieux Laboratories, Inc., Donald G. Hildebrand, Jack R. Berg

908 F.2d 706 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1990

Best Manufacturing Co., supra, Salsbury did not establish that it possesses a trade secret. … Thus, the district court did not clearly err in its determination that plaintiff possesses a trade secret in the MG-BAC process as a whole under Georgia law. See Wilson v.