Case law

United States v. Board of Trustees for the University of Alabama

908 F.2d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1990

Two Supreme Court decisions have established important guidelines for interpreting section 504. In Southeastern Community College v. … Thus, the transportation services provided to handicapped persons are clearly “not equal to” nor “as effective as” the transportation services offered to non-handicapped persons.

Maharaj v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections

432 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2005

That measuring stick is “clearly established Federal law.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). Clearly established federal law is not the case law of the lower federal courts, including this Court. … Thus, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision was not “contrary to” clearly established federal law.

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.

Thalia S. Gillis v. Ga. Dept. of Corrections

400 F.3d 883 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 2005

action; (3) her 9 employer treated similarly situated employees who are not members of the plaintiff’s class more favorably; and (4) she was qualified for the job or job benefit … Our reasoning in Davis clearly suggests that had Davis’s job evaluations or assignments affected his salary, it would be considered an adverse employment action.

Martha Johnson and Delores J. Ceballos, Etc. v. University College of the University of Alabama in Birmingham George W. Campbell, Etc.

706 F.2d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 1983

While plaintiffs introduced some evidence supporting their petition, the rates set by the court were not clearly erroneous. … Despite these obstacles, they attained a significant victory and established a mechanism for ensuring that defendants’ future employment actions comport with the civil rights laws.

Byonca Logan v. City of Mobile

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2025

DISCUSSION Qualified immunity protects government officials perform- ing discretionary functions “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established … We have stated: There are three recognized ways to show that a law is “clearly established.”

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.

Jeffrey Koeppel v. District Board of Trustees of Valencia College, Florida

903 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2018

“[A] plaintiff whose speech is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim . . . .” Holder v. … Koeppel’s conduct was “clearly proscribed” under the stalking provision.

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).

Warren Lee Hill, Jr. v. Derrick Schofield

608 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 2010

We conclude that because Georgia’s requirement of proof be *1274 yond a reasonable doubt necessarily will result in the execution of the mentally retarded, the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision is contrary to the clearly established … In those opinions, the Supreme Court did not alter the meaning of the term "clearly established,” but merely applied the rule that "[a] legal principle is 'clearly established’ within the meaning of [AEDPA] only when it is

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

Luis Felipe Rodriguez, Jr. v. Broward Sheriff's

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2007

of Rodriguez’s clearly established constitutional rights. … We thus held that the detectives were entitled to qualified immunity because they “had neither actual knowledge of the report nor a clearly established duty to ferret it out.” Id. at 1552.

Terence C. Everett v. Marianna Police Dept.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

established. … We find no error in this holding. 2  Turning now to the clearly-established prong of the qualified immunity defense, we find no error in the district court’s conclusion

Carpenters Pension Fund of Illinois v. MiMedx Group, Inc.

73 F.4th 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2023

“To have a case or controversy, a litigant must establish that he has standing.” Ga. Ass’n of Latino Elected Offs., Inc. v. Gwinnett Cnty. … also held that a plaintiff “may still move the court for leave to amend, and such amendments should be granted liberally,” although “[s]uch a mo- tion would be inappropriate . . . if the court has clearly

Aaron L. Stephen v. United States

519 F. App'x 682 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2013

“Access to the courts is clearly a constitutional right, grounded in the First Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Fifth 2  Case: 11-12555 … That is, a prisoner may demonstrate actual injury by establishing that prison officials’ actions actually deterred his pursuit of a “non-frivolous post-conviction claim or civil rights action.” See Al-Amin v.

Elvester Goree v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

276 F. App'x 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 1, 2008

that Goree has pointed to facts that would constitute a constitutional violation, we have not proceeded with the requisite qualified immunity analysis that would otherwise protect these officers from liability under section … In Georgia, official or qualified immunity “protects individual public agents from personal liability for discretionary actions taken within the scope of their official authority, and done without wilfulness, malice, or

Forehand v. Florida State Hospital

89 F.3d 1562 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

Accordingly, based on the limited record, we are unable to determine whether the special master's findings were clearly erroneous. … See Payne, 673 F.2d at 826 (holding that the court's decision to accept one party's statistical evidence was not clearly erroneous).

Regions Bank v. Legal Outsource PA

936 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2019

court did not clearly designate it as such. … It found that out of 8,795 credit accounts established for single men, 176 defaulted (2%); while among 4,337 accounts established for single women, only 33 defaulted (0.75%).

George Alston v. City of Darien

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2018

immunity because Alston has not shown that Brown’s actions violated clearly established law. … Alston thus has failed to show that Brown violated clearly established law, and Brown is entitled to qualified immunity on that claim. 13  Case: 17-15692

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." … , or program which 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