Case law

Kevin Calderone v. Michael Scott

838 F.3d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2016

In a Rule 23(b)(3) class action, all qualifying class members become members unless they opt out of the action. … Instead, the District Court said LaChapelle establishes that overlapping FLSA and FMWA class actions are “mutually exclusive and irreconcilable.”

United States v. Charles W. Walker, Sr.

490 F.3d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2007

He clearly held a position of trust, granted to him by the Classic Board, which exercised no oversight over his activities. … The court thus clearly erred in imposing this enhancement when it separately found that there were no other participants in the scheme. See id.

American Ass'n of People with Disabilities ex rel. O'Connor v. Harris

647 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2011

“Auxiliary aids” include “[qualified interpreters ...; notetakers; ... [qualified readers; ... and ... [ojther similar services and actions.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 . … The City and the County are consolidated and are governed under the Charter of the Consolidated Government of the City of Jacksonville, which established a mayor-city council form of government.

Kuhne v. Florida Department of Corrections

618 F. App'x 498 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 2, 2015

immunity as to all defendants. … The defendants can, of course, continue to pursue their qualified immunity claims at trial. 69 Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). 70 See, e.g., Johnson v.

Leo CORBIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOUTHLAND INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS, Defendant-Appellee

25 F.3d 1545 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 1994

a prima facie case of age discrimination by showing (1) that he was in a protected age group at the time of his termination, (2) that he was qualified for his current position at the time of his termination, and (3) evidence … This finding is clearly erroneous. Wallace's memorandum memorializing the meeting is dated September 1987, not September 1989.

Gilmere v. City of Atlanta

737 F.2d 894 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1984

The district court found no such link; its findings of fact on this issue are not clearly erroneous, Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), and its conclusions of law were correct. … Wright: The Supreme Courtis Whipping Boy, 78 Colum.L.Rev. 75, 90-91 (1978), is contrary to elementary notions of tort law and was clearly foreclosed by Ingraham, supra. .

Timothy Allen Davis, Sr. v. City of Apopka

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2018

immunity standard, and a city cannot be entitled to qualified immunity; thus, claims against the City may be dismissed only if the officers had actual probable cause, a higher standard. … The City responds that it clearly enjoys immunity under Florida law. We agree.

Lisa M. Holland v. David A. Gee

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2012

Under McDonnell Douglas, the plaintiff must initially establish a prima facie case, which generally consists of the following: 1) the plaintiff was a member of a protected class, 2) she was qualified to do the job, 3) she … Finally, Sheriff Gee argues that “there clearly appears on the face of this record another possible motivation”—the fact that Ms.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) v. Hunt

891 F.2d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 1990

Appellant Alvin Holmes clearly falls into this category. He was the plaintiff in Holmes v. Wallace; he is a plaintiff/appellant in this action. … Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing religion.

Michael W. Bass v. Board of County Commissioners

256 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 2001

In order to establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under Title VII, the plaintiff must show that: (1) he was qualified and applied for the position; (2) he was rejected despite his qualifications; and (3) … in favor of another less qualified employee of a different race.

Spires v. Ben Hill County

980 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1993

This type of activity clearly does not fall within the definitions of either firefighting or law enforcement contained in 29 C.F.R. §§ 553.210 and .211. … Finally, in May, 1989, Halbert wrote to the County that after further examination of the EMT logs, he determined that the EMTs employed by the County qualified for the partial firefighter’s exemption.

United States v. Tanganica Corbett

921 F.3d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 17, 2019

Second, we explain that Corbett has established no plain error in the application of the loss- amount enhancement. A. … If “the purpose of the conspiracy” determined whether identical conduct did or did 11  Case: 18-13203 Date Filed: 04/17/2019 Page: 12 of 22 not qualify

Peter A. Bugge vs Kevin Roberts

430 F. App'x 753 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 2011

Our decisions clearly establish that this evidence, at the very least, is sufficient to create a jury question on whether a substantial risk of serious harm existed at CSP. See,e.g., Marsh v. … McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33 (1993)). 8 The defendants also raised a qualified-immunity defense when moving for summary judgment.

Albert Clayton Simmons, II v. American Institute of Certified Public Accountants

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2025

He does not, however, make any argument regarding the sovereign immunity dismissal. Nor does he cite any case law related to the sovereign immunity analysis. … While Simmons clearly challenges the sovereign immunity holding in his reply brief and cites relevant legal authorities, this is not sufficient to preserve our review.

Benarvis Johnson, Sr. v. Albert Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2021

And for purposes of qualified immunity, ar- guable probable cause exists when a reasonable officer in the same circumstances and possessing the same knowledge as a subject of- ficer could have believed that probable cause … And certainly, plaintiff has fallen far short of demonstrating a vio- lation of clearly established law. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

Albert Davis v. Montgomery County Detention Facility

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2020

designation. 2  Case: 19-11112 Date Filed: 08/21/2020 Page: 3 of 4 failing to protect him; and (5) Campbell and Fitts are not entitled to qualified … immunity because their conduct violated Davis’s clearly established rights. 1 The Court does not find reversible error on any of these grounds and only briefly addresses the Eighth Amendment failure to protect claim.

Raleigh v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

827 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2016

This, too, was an implicit recognition that Stumpf’s claim is not clearly established law. … To find, based on the Court’s holding in Johnson, that the rule advanced by Raleigh was “clearly established” would enable courts to “transform even the most imaginative extension of existing case law into ‘clearly established

Madura v. Bac Home Loans Servicing, LP

593 F. App'x 834 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2014

Fairbanks Capital Corp., 888 So.2d 725, 727 (Fla.5th Dist.Ct.App.2004) (recognizing a “promissory note is clearly a negotiable instrument” under Florida law). … BOA has established its standing to foreclose on the Maduras’ mortgage.

Bello v. Johnson

442 F. App'x 477 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 4, 2011

Jordan also argued that she was entitled to absolute immunity or, alternatively, qualified immunity. The district court dismissed the Bellos’ complaint. … Ct. at 2684, the Bellos had to establish that, absent the alleged “‘misrepresentations or omissions, probable cause would have been lacking.’” United States v.

United States v. Tony Darwin

757 F.2d 1193 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 16, 1985

While this statement clearly implicated Darwin in the narcotics case its relevance to the obstruction of justice charge was minimal. … The courts have recognized, however, that merely because the right to counsel has attached with regard to one charge, a defendant is not immunized from investigation for other criminal conduct committed thereafter.