Case law

Jerberee Jefferson v. Sewon America, Inc.

891 F.3d 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2018

Indeed, that Chung administered a preliminary test and that Sewon later insisted that the job required five years of experience and that Jefferson was unqualified for the new work—even though she was qualified for her … It explained that an employment “examination, which barred promotion and had a discriminatory impact on black employees, clearly [fell] within the literal language of [section 2000e-2(a)(2)]” because “[t]he statute speaks

Ad-Vantage Telephone Directory Consultants, Inc., Cross v. Gte Directories Corporation, Cross-Appellee

849 F.2d 1336 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 1987

Many of the publishers of telephone directories are themselves qualified ASR’s. … “National” advertising clearly effects interstate commerce; it is designed to promote it. A local advertisement differs markedly from a national ad.

United States v. Sanchez

159 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2005

Sanchez argues two issues on appeal, namely, that (1) the district court clearly erred in denying Sanchez a minimal or minor role reduction, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b); and (2) the district court’s imposition of a sentence … Accordingly, the district court did not err in determining that Sanchez did not qualify for a minor role reduction. II.

Worthington Ex Rel. JW v. Elmore County Board of Education

160 F. App'x 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2005

In 2000, the Alabama Supreme Court restated the rule of state-agent immunity, establishing that the agent is entitled to immunity when the claim is based on certain categories of duties, including where the agent is “exercising … was assaulted while Blake was driving the bus does not establish that Blake was 7 We note that in Ex parte McWhorter, 880 So. 2d 1116, 1117 (Ala. 2003), the Alabama Supreme Court did grant state-agent immunity

Jean Guillaume v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2025

“Sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in na- ture,” FDIC v. … A civil penalty can qualify as a criminal punishment only if it is “so punitive either in purpose or effect” that it is transformed into a “criminal penalty.” Cole v.

Kenneth Lodge v. Kondaur Capital Corporation

750 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2014

We thus hold that, at a minimum, to recover “actual” damages for emotional distress under § 362(k), a plaintiff must (1) suffer significant emotional distress, (2) clearly establish the significant emotional distress, … In any event, the Lodges have not established a causal connection between their injuries and the violation of the automatic stay. See id. at 1149.

Tiffany Wingo v. Major Branson Harris

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 1, 2025

The district court (1) granted summary judgment on the sec- tion 1983 claims, concluding the defendants were protected by qualified immunity, and (2) granted summary judgment to Deputy Wilkerson on … Myers’s testimony establishes that Deputy Wilkerson could have saved her father’s life if he had called for emergency medical care between 7:45 and 8:45 a.m.

LSSI Data Corp. v. Comcast Phone, LLC

696 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2012

However, this Court reviews “findings of fact upon which the decision to grant equitable relief was made under the clearly erroneous standard.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). IV. … This “ensures that the party opposing a preliminary injunction is not saddled with the burden of production, initially, and that the proponent of this extraordinary and drastic remedy is required to clearly establish the

United States v. Lee

586 F.3d 859 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2009

The district court found that all three of Lee’s convictions qualified as violent felonies and overruled Lee’s objections. … Thus, convictions for walkaway escape could clearly take place on the basis of conduct that did not present a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.

Itel Capital Corporation, a Corporation, Cross-Appellant v. Cups Coal Company, Incorporated, a Corporation and Herman Mulvehill, Cross-Appellees

707 F.2d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 1983

The allegations in Itel’s amended complaint clearly “arose out of the conduct, transaction, or occurrence” set forth in the original complaint. … Even assuming that this testimony normally might be hearsay, 16 it qualifies for admission as a statement by a coeonspirator during the course and in furtherance of a conspiracy.

Florence Nightingale Nursing Service, Inc. v. Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama

41 F.3d 1476 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 1995

It was clearly within the district court’s discretion to use § 27-l-17(b) as an analogy to fill a gap in ERISA law. … The district court found that Blue Cross had not acted in bad faith because it clearly had an arguable basis for its decision. See Armistead v.

Bob Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home

692 F.2d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 1983

First, the conduct complained of must have deprived the plaintiff of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … In Boeing the former Fifth Circuit undertook to establish the federal standard for sufficiency of the evidence in civil cases.

Warren Lee Hill, Jr. v. Carl Humphrey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 22, 2011

Atkins Clearly Established that the Eighth Amendment Protects All Mentally Retarded Offenders from Execution The majority first errs in suggesting that Atkins did not clearly establish that all of … Clearly established Supreme Court law forbids this result. III.

Diane T. Gowski, M.D. v. James Peake

682 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 2012

The court disagreed because this was mentioned clearly in the plaintiffs’ closing argument and in the court’s instructions. … Here, the term “discriminate” appears without the qualifier.

Angelucci v. Government Employees Insurance

412 F. App'x 206 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2011

This sequence of events prejudiced the Angeluccis because their actions could be interpreted “by the jury to be hiding clearly relevant evidence.” Borcheck v. State Farm Mut. Auto. … In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the Angeluccis have established a substantial prejudicial effect.

Bryant Davis v. Daniel Lang

706 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2017

Plaintiff’s § 1983 claim, the 10  Case: 17-10069 Date Filed: 08/30/2017 Page: 11 of 22 district court determined that Sergeant Lang was entitled to qualified … is required to overcome such immunity.

Childers v. Floyd

608 F.3d 776 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

“Clearly established” in paragraph (1) “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta” of Supreme Court jurisprudence at the time of the relevant state court decision. Lockyer v. … A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if a state court “applies a rule that contradicts the governing law” as enunciated by the Supreme Court or if the state court “confronts a set of facts

Estrada v. Becker

917 F.3d 1298 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2019

The Policy clearly looks to federal standards to verify lawful presence, and it does not require a state agent to make any independent determination. See, e.g. , League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. … According to appellants, this shows congressional "intent to achieve flexibility in immigration enforcement while establishing the [E]xecutive's word as final in discretionary matters."

McKinney v. Pate

985 F.2d 1502 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 1993

Thus, the district court’s ruling setting aside McKinney’s judgment was clearly erroneous and is vacated. 11 IY. … Here "political" must be read with the qualifier "improper,” because "political” cannot mean "improper” in all cases. Sometimes the "just cause” for a dismissal may have its roots in the political.

In Re: William Hunt

835 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2016

That is to say, Supreme Court precedent establishes an expectation that defendants will receive reasonable sentences, and we rely on the Guidelines to determine reasonableness. … Because defendants have a clearly established expectation that they will receive reasonable sentences and the Guidelines serve as the foundation of the reasonableness analysis, the Guidelines provide notice as to the scope