Case law

3m Health Care, Ltd. v. Richard R. Grant, Administrator, Pharmacy Program, Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida

908 F.2d 918 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1990

The purpose of the act is simple and express: “[t]o provide for the establishment, operation, and maintenance of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and … requiring unnecessary regulation of goods in which it has no interest, it frustrates the goal of the Foreign Trade Zones Act. 4 Florida’s attempted regulation of 3M’s warehousing of pharmaceuticals destined for Latin America is clearly

Jabari Luckett v. Napolean Jones

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2022

To receive qualified immun- ity, an officer need not establish actual probable cause, but only that he had “arguable probable cause” to arrest or prosecute. Id. at 1257 (quotation marks omitted). … immunity.

Holbrook v. City of Alpharetta

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 1997

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination in 1 Holbrook challenges the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of the City of Alpharetta on his claims … has held that a plaintiff alleging a violation of a federal statute will be permitted to sue under section 1983 unless " "(1) the statute does not create enforceable rights, privileges, or immunities

79 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 330, 74 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,728, 75 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 45,728 Shari L. Lyes v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida, Cinthia Becton

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.

United States v. Theodore D. Lockley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 11, 2011

See act”—meaning an act or omission—which clearly signals the commission of the offense instead of mere preparation. … As such, this form of robbery clearly presents a “serious potential risk of physical injury.” See United States v.

Samuel Brewer v. Muscle Shoals Board Of Education

790 F.2d 1515 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 1986

There is also no dispute that Brewer was qualified (although perhaps not most qualified) to fill the vacancies. … The Board and Heidorn challenge this finding as clearly erroneous.

In Re Challenge Air International, Inc., Debtor. United States of America v. Challenge Air Int'l Inc., American Express Bank International

952 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 1992

Thus, the Court made it clear that the IRS does not have any special immunity from the reach of § 542. Id. at 209, 103 S.Ct. at 2315 . … The transfer of physical possession of the seized property to the IRS prior to the debtor’s bankruptcy was clearly irrelevant to the determination made in Whiting Pools.

United States v. Robert Brehm

442 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2006

If he had qualified for a safety-valve reduction, Brehm could have been sentenced below 120 months, within a range of 108 to 120 months. … The defendant in that case, however had clearly qualified for safety valve relief. Id. at 1348.

United States v. Miller

166 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 1999

It argues that the transmission of electronic messages by Miller, an act to which he stipulated in the plea agreement, qualifies as "relevant conduct" under the sentencing guidelines. … Clearly, the district court did not err in applying the cross-reference in § 2G2.2(c)(1). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Sheila A. Knepfle v. J & P Cycles, LLC

48 F.4th 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 14, 2022

Second, the plaintiff may establish facts that justify piercing the corporate veil. … And, in Knepfle’s view, Lloyd’s methodology was reliable because it focused on “relevant compression (i.e., clearly visible compression).” 7 We disagree. 7 Knepfle does not offer any explanation as to why only visible

United States v. Leonard Rowe, Walter Preston Rash

906 F.2d 654 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 24, 1990

The factual circumstances of this case, while establishing a colorable showing of extrinsic influence meriting judicial inquiry, clearly do not establish the sort of prejudice meriting a new trial. … Since “one who is trying as an honest man to live up to the sanctity of his oath is well qualified to say whether he has an unbiased mind in a certain matter,” 4 and since this juror acknowledged his ability to proceed in

Jian Le Lin v. U.S. Attorney General

681 F.3d 1236 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2012

There are no geographical restrictions included in the statute that would qualify the circumstances under which an alien may file one motion to reopen. … Congress clearly considered and included some restrictions on the ability to file a motion to reopen but chose not to make a limitation based on the alien’s physical location.

Miriam Crisman v. Florida Atlantic University Board of Trustees

659 F. App'x 572 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2016

Under the RIF standard, the district judge concluded Crisman could not establish she was qualified for another available position at FAU, when she was terminated. … Under that standard, the judge correctly concluded Crisman failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, because she did not show she was qualified to assume another position available at FAU at the time of

Morstein v. National Insurance Svs.

74 F.3d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 12, 1996

The district court concluded that Morstein's claims "clearly relate to the employee benefit plan established by Graphic Promotions; therefore, those claims are preempted by ERISA." R2-29-3. … was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained

Parker v. Allen

565 F.3d 1258 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2009

We will not, therefore, disturb the decisions of the Alabama courts unless those decisions are “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court … A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established Supreme Court law if the law is “applied . . . to the facts . . . in an objectively unreasonable manner.” Woodford v.

United States v. Miguel Monzo

852 F.3d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2017

First, we are unpersuaded by Monzo’s claim that the district court clearly erred in denying his request for a minor-role reduction. … The defendant bears the burden of establishing his minor role by a preponderance of the evidence. Bernal-Benitez, 594 F.3d at 1320.

Andrews v. United States

121 F.3d 1430 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1997

In so doing, we accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a); Daley v. United States, 792 F.2d 1081, 1086 (11th Cir.1986). III. … DISCUSSION The FTCA is a limited waiver of the United States’ sovereign immunity. Powers, 996 F.2d at 1124 .

Reiyn Keohane v. Florida Department of Corrections Secretary

952 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2020

are not clearly erroneous. … The record shows that Keohane’s treatment team was not qualified to treat her illness and thus provided subpar care.

Jean v. Nelson

727 F.2d 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 1984

This is clearly not the case. … That the authority of the political branches in this area is plenary does not mean that it is wholly immune from judicial review.

Natasha N. Clemons v. Thomas M. Knight

662 F. App'x 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2016

The district court ruled that Sasse and Shaw were entitled to qualified immunity and that the complaints against the Sheriff failed as a matter of law because the deputies’ use of force was reasonable. … See id. at 1181–84; Terrell, 668 F.3d at 1253 (discussing cases in which officers were granted qualified immunity when the defendant used or threatened to use a vehicle as a weapon).