Case law

Wilson v. Warden, Georgia Diagnostic Prison

834 F.3d 1227 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2016

It ruled that the state trial court reasonably applied clearly established federal law. … Fisher, when it held that the “clearly established Federal law” to be applied is the law at the time of “the last state-court adjudication on the merits.” Id.

Pittman v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

871 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2017

Nor was the decision an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. … It was neither an unreasonable application of nor contrary to clearly established federal law for the Florida Supreme Court to determine that Pittman had failed to establish prejudice.

O'Ferrell v. United States

253 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2001

Accordingly, the court finds that the Plaintiffs have not established that the statements in the Brannan affidavit were false.” Id. at 1302. … We there held that the government had immunity from claims of conversion and detention of personal property under 28 U.S.C. § 2680(c).

Frulla v. CRA Holdings, Inc.

543 F.3d 1247 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2008

The defendants answered and denied that there was any agreement to immunize plaintiffs or members of the class from periodic modifications of either the Transway or ICC Plans, both of which reserved, in their summary plan … parties’ dispute over whether employee contributions violate the Agreed Judgment remains a live controversy that “calls, not for an advisory opinion upon a hypothetical basis, but for an adjudication of present right upon established

Annette Cave v. State of Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2020

covered under the Act,” and the federal court was, therefore, able to clearly predict that the defendant would be denied equal civil rights under federal statute. … Nor is there any federal statute immunizing Cave from the precise type of proceeding being brought in state court.

Samuel A. Mazzola v. Donald Davis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2019

Mazzola was not qualified to work at the canteen; (4) Mr. Mazzola’s claims were barred by sovereign immunity; and (5) Mr. Mazzola lacked standing for injunctive relief. In response, Mr. … Mazzola’s claims are barred by sovereign immunity. See Black v. Wigington, 811 F.3d 1259, 1269–70 (11th Cir. 2016).

Narey v. Dean

32 F.3d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 1994

Const. of 1983, Art. 4, Sec. 3, p 1 (establishing the State Personnel Board and providing for gubernatorial appointment of Board members). … District Judge for the Northern District of Alabama, sitting by designation 1 The defendants' argument that the district court erred in denying them qualified immunity on the pretextual demotion claim is now moot, because

Jesse E. Brannen, III, P.C. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2012

. § 9701, agencies are permitted to promulgate regulations that establish a charge for a service or thing of value that the agency provides. … And we readily conclude that the benefit – the privilege of preparing tax returns for others for compensation – is the kind of “special benefit” that qualifies under New England Power.

Paul H. Evans v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2012

Alabama, 318 F.3d 1302, 1309 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Our inquiry into what is clearly established federal law for AEDPA purposes must focus on the decisions of the Supreme Court. … Clearly established federal law is not the case law of the lower federal courts, including this Court.”) (quotation marks omitted); Putman v.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. ETS Payphones, Inc.

408 F.3d 727 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2005

The Supreme Court has set out the test for determining whether a transaction qualifies as an “investment contract” in SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 66 S.Ct. 1100 (1946). … The more control investors retain, the less likely it becomes that the contract qualifies as a security. ETS investors retained minimal control over the telephones.

Alexander v. Hawk

159 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 5, 1998

Ed. 2d 291 (1992) (noting, in the pre-PLRA context, that “where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs”). … Thus, section 1997e(a) by its own terms clearly applies to Alexander’s Bivens action. The Tenth Circuit reached this same conclusion in Garrett v.

Michael Edward Bufkin v. United States

522 F. App'x 530 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2013

Mitchell, 634 F.2d 199, 203 (5th Cir. 1981) (“[a]bsent a waiver of immunity the United States is immune from suit in tort”). A waiver of sovereign immunity “cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.” … Constitution establishes that federal law trumps state law. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. __, __, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2500, 183 L. Ed. 2d 351 (2012) (quoting U.S. Const. art.

United States v. Wali Ebbin Rashee Ross

964 F.3d 1034 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

Stat. § 509.141(1), which states that “[t]he operator of any public lodging establishment . . . may remove . . . in the manner hereinafter provided, any guest of the establishment . . . who . . . fails to check out by the … The statute requires a hotel “operator [to] . . . notify such guest that the establishment no longer desires to entertain the guest and shall request that such guest immediately depart from the establishment”—if the guest

American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia v. Rabun County Chamber of Commerce, Inc.

698 F.2d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 4, 1983

Numerous qualified witnesses testified at trial that the latin cross is universally regarded as a symbol of Chris *1111 tianity. … Thus, we are unable to conclude that the district court’s finding was clearly erroneous.

Curry v. Baker

802 F.2d 1302 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 1986

That section, however, is clearly too cumbersome to have any real deterrent effect on raiding in a primary. … To the contrary, it was clearly *1319 reasonable under the circumstances before the subcommittee. IV.

United States v. William Day

943 F.2d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 4, 1991

The government also agreed to advise the sentencing court of the nature and extent of Day’s cooperation, and to consider whether the cooperation actually received qualified as “substantial assistance” under 18 U.S.C. § 3553 … Such a finding is not clearly erroneous.

Gust v. United States Ex Rel. Internal Revenue Service (In Re Gust)

197 F.3d 1112 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 9, 1999

In other words, these sections clearly state that taxes listed in §§ 507(a)(2);(8) are not discharged. Section 507 of the Bankruptcy Code establishes priorities for claims and expenses. Id. at § 507(a). … Gust premises his objection and appeal on the grounds that because the IRS's claim was secured, the claim did not qualify as an exception to discharge because the introductory clause in § 507(a)(8) only references "allowed

United States v. Brown

872 F.2d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1989

Did the trial court err in qualifying and admitting the testimony of a government expert witness as to drug code words and jargon? 5. … The propriety of the government’s use of transcripts of taped recordings as an “aid” to the jury has been clearly established in United States v. Onori, 535 F.2d 938 (5th Cir.1976).

Robert V. Smith v. Jay Odom

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

About three years later, Smith approached the County about establishing a competing fixed-base operator at the airport. … Neither party disputes that news articles “clearly qualify as news media.” United States ex rel. Osheroff v. Humana Inc., 776 F.3d 805, 813 (11th Cir. 2015).

I.L. v. The State of Alabama

739 F.3d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2014

A district court’s finding as to discriminatory intent is a factual one that cannot be set aside unless it “is clearly erroneous, is based on clearly erroneous subsidiary findings of fact, or is based on an erroneous view … We by no means intend to suggest that Hunter establishes a threshold that must be met in order to establish discriminatory intent; Hunter, to the contrary, was an anomalous case in that the record was replete with direct