Case law

United States v. Burson Augustin

661 F.3d 1105 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2011

Thus, in determining whether a proffered expert is qualified under Rule 702, trial courts must consider whether: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address … We reject Batiste’s and Abraham’s assertion that the district court erred in qualifying Agent Young as an expert.

United States v. Bobby Gene Hayes, and Joseph Ward

676 F.2d 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 1982

Our examination of the established core of purposes and principles encircling the double jeopardy guarantee bolsters the government’s position further still. … The record shows clearly that the trial judge was not aware of the extent of Ward’s efforts to deceive other law enforcement officials until such evidence was introduced during the second trial.

Ms. Serpentfoot v. Rome City Commission

426 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 20, 2011

Sectarian prayers offered before the opening of legislative meetings do not violate the Establishment Clause, unless the prayers were meant to advance any religion or to disparage another religion. See Pelphrey v. … immunity -- that we need not decide now.

United States v. Kifah Wael Jayyousi

657 F.3d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 2011

not support a conclusion that this finding was clearly erroneous. … Conclusion The old adage that “hard facts make bad law” is clearly evident here.

United States v. Charles Marvin Watkins

760 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2014

The Supreme Court has not established whether the rule in Randolph applies to privacy interests in computers or other personal effects. Cf. Randolph, 547 U.S. at 131, 126 S. … Watkins’s consent to a limited search at the sheriff’s office does not qualify under Randolph as a present objection to his wife’s later consent to a wider search.

Warshauer v. Solis

577 F.3d 1330 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2009

However, Warshauer did not file the Form LM-10, based on his belief that he does not qualify as an “employer” under § 203(a)(1) of the LMRDA. C. … Corp., 474 U.S. 361, 368 (1986)) (“The traditional deference courts pay to agency interpretation is not to be applied to alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”). 2 B.

Glazer v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

524 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2008

The administrator must “[p]rovide . . . upon 5 request . . . all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claimant’s claim for benefits” for the review to qualify … Glazer failed to establish that she is disabled.

Tawana Michelle Dickey v. Dollar General Corp.

351 F. App'x 389 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2009

“In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, [a plaintiff] must demonstrate that [she] (1) is disabled, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was … Here, the district court properly concluded that Dickey failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

United States v. Kerri L. Kaley, Brian P. Kaley

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 2012

We begin by emphasizing again that the Sixth Amendment right implicated here -- the qualified right to counsel of choice -- is a weighty concern. See, e.g., Powell v. … Id. at 363. 16  Subsequent case law clearly establishes that an otherwise valid indictment may not be invalidated even if the grand jury has considered evidence obtained

C. B. v. Driscoll

82 F.3d 383 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 1996

We hold that the search of a student in the instant circumstances does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and therefore we need not consider issues of qualified immunity and of local government liability. … In any event, CB clearly received all the process that was due. 13 the Supreme Court has identified as substantive due process was not offended by the suspension and transfer.

Lee v. Russell County Board of Education

744 F.2d 768 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 1984

It held that while the plaintiffs proved that they were members of a protected class, were qualified for the positions held due to their scholastic achievements, and were discharged, the evidence failed to support the fourth … Thus, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

Wooten v. Quicken Loans, Inc.

626 F.3d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 23, 2010

We cannot conceive of a circumstance in which the charging of loan discount points would qualify under our definition of “service.” … The district court dismissed Count II on the ground that the complaint’s allegations failed to establish that Quicken breached its contracts with the Wootens and Buckhaults. We affirm the court’s ruling.

United States v. D.N. Stafford and Flora C. Stafford

727 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 1984

EXCHANGE AND PROPERTY REQUIREMENTS To qualify for nonreeognition treatment on the receipt of a partnership share, the partner must establish that he made a contribution of “property” in “exchange” for that share. … The letter clearly was transferable. The letter itself evidenced a commitment to Stafford “or his designee.” See supra note 3.

Kay Sessoms Hinson v. Clinch Co. Ga. Board of Ed.

231 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2000

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case, Dr. … Hinson established a prima facie Title VII case because she introduced sufficient evidence for a juror to conclude that she was a member of a protected class, qualified for her job, replaced by a man, and suffered an adverse

Kay Sessoms Hinson v. Clinch Co. Ga. Board of Ed.

231 F.3d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2000

Prima Facie Case To establish a prima facie case, Dr. … Hinson established a prima facie Title VII case because she introduced sufficient evidence for a juror to conclude that she was a member of a protected class, qualified for her job, replaced by a man, and suffered an adverse

Theresa Graham v. R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company

857 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 2017

He said, “None of them qualified their answer one iota. Does cigarette smoking cause these diseases? Yes, yes, yes. Clear, crisp and definitive.” … intended to ‘protect the national economy from the burden imposed by diverse, nonuniform, and confusing cigarette labeling and advertising regulations,’ but did not clearly intend to extend broad immunity from common law

United States v. David Douglas Delgado

981 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 23, 2020

Siegelman, 786 F.3d 1322, 1332–33 (11th Cir. 2015) (recognizing that whether conduct qualifies as relevant conduct is reviewed for clear error). … Thus, the Government readily established an appropriate nexus between the firearms and the illegal substances.

Mcclendon v. Drummond Coal Company

861 F.2d 1512 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 20, 1988

Brasfield, McClendon's physician, relied on qualifying blood-gas studies in concluding that McClendon had black lung. The ALJ was entitled to accord greater significance to Dr. … The regulations state clearly that the claimant only need demonstrate that the miner's condition arose "at least in part" from coal mine employment. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 718.203(a). Both Dr.

United States v. Harry W. Snyder, Jr.

291 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2002

Many of the comments referenced by the defendants are clearly innocuous. … Brown, 53 F.3d 312 , 314 n. 3 (11th Cir.1995), we hold "a reasonable fact finder could conclude that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v.

United States v. Joel Esquenazi

752 F.3d 912 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 2014

The instruction was a correct legal statement, was clearly delivered, and nothing in its language was misleading to the jury. 13 b. … Yet, because the evidence clearly did demonstrate two distinct offenses, we address the contention as Mr.