Case law

Rogers v. Bennett

873 F.2d 1387 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1989

It does not specifically require the issuance of regulations or expressly provide for enforcement procedures, but it is clearly mandatory in form, and such regulations and enforcement are intended. … Section 504 is much broader in scope than is the EHA, prohibiting discrimination against otherwise qualified handicapped individuals in all federal programs and programs receiving federal funding.

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).

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. Marion Van Horn, Scott Bertelsen, Gary Balough, Dennis Kay, Robert Van Horn, Dennis Cason, Thomas Sikes, John Crosby Bertelsen, Joseph William Campbell, United States of America v. William Joseph Harvey, A/K/A Billy

789 F.2d 1492 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 1986

The appellants' contentions that the affidavit did not establish probable cause that there had been an agreement to commit two predicate RICO acts, 18 U.S.C. … Exculpatory No 91 The "exclupatory no" exception to section 1001 was established in this circuit in Paternostro v. United States, 311 F.2d 298 (5th Cir.1962).

Clyde SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. STATE OF GEORGIA and Department of Human Resources; Et Al., Defendants-Appellees

684 F.2d 729 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1982

Although the district court’s findings of fact will be upheld unless clearly erroneous, Fed.R. … The court then notes that “a more troublesome problem” developed out of the July, 1977 promotion, but points out that those promoted were well qualified and that Smith had a problem with productivity. Record, vol.

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

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.

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).

Jerry Greenberg v. National Geographic Society

244 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 2001

Note that in order to qualify as a derivative work, the resulting work (including "revisions") after transformation must qualify as an "original work of authorship." … The use to which the diver photograph was put was clearly a transformative use.

All Care Nursing Service, Inc. v. High Tech Staffing Services, Inc.

135 F.3d 740 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 18, 1998

In defining “price fixing” the Supreme Court wrote in these terms: That price-fixing includes more than the mere establishment of uniform prices is clearly evident_ [P]rices are fixed ... if the range within which purchases … We cannot say the finding that no relevant market was established is clearly erroneous. The failure to establish the relevant market (either by product or geography) was fatal to plaintiffs-appellants’ antitrust claims.

United States v. Keneon Fitzroy Isaac

987 F.3d 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2021

It lists “teachers, day care providers, baby-sitters, or other temporary caretakers” as among those who would qualify for the enhancement. See U.S.S.G. § 2G2.1 cmt. n.5(A). … Finally, as for Isaac’s complaint that he won’t live to see the end of his 80- year sentence, that fact doesn’t establish that the sentence is unreasonable.

Lydia Rosenfeld v. Oceania Cruises, Inc.

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

In effect, all Vournechis could establish was that the floor was slippery when wet. … At most, all the expert’s testimony could possibly establish is that a tile floor could be slippery when wet.

United States v. Sandra Mateos

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2010

that her patients did not qualify for WinRho treatments; she was present when patients at St. … complications, and that the risk is especially high when the patients have HIV and weakened immune systems.

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.

United States v. Glen Sterling Carpenter

803 F.3d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2015

Even if we were to assume that the district court committed some error in imposing these conditions, no binding authority established that the error was plain. … In other words, Carpenter must show that some controlling authority clearly established that the court erred in imposing the challenged conditions. He cannot.

United States v. Lindon Amede

977 F.3d 1086 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 8, 2020

Findings of fact will be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous. United States v. … In any event, Amede failed to establish prejudice. United States v.

Calderon v. Aerovias Nacionales Colombia

929 F.2d 599 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 1991

This statute prohibits all review of remand orders, even if the district court's decision to remand was clearly erroneous. See Gravitt v. … The Court held that "only remand orders issued under Sec. 1447(c) and invoking the grounds specified therein--that removal was improvident and without jurisdiction--are immune from review under Sec. 1447(d)." 423 U.S. at

Edward Raymond v. Hillsborough County, Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2025

Casey, 75 F.4th 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2023) (affirming that the “test in Wesby should be applied to answer whether probable cause exists for an arrest or qualified immunity prevents liability for a … immunity”).

Brenda Cash v. Sylvia Smith

231 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2000

In order to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, Cash must demonstrate that she (1) is disabled, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of her disability … of this case, however, it is clear that the terms can be used interchangeably, and so we will use the term “disability” in describing the standards under both statutes. 7 clearly

Cynthia Love v. Delta Air Lines

310 F.3d 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2002

Ct. at 1656 (“[A]n agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review under [5 U.S.C.] § 701(a)(2).”). … Second, air carriers themselves are required to establish ACAA dispute resolution mechanisms.