Case law

Gabriel Johnson, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. United States Department of Agriculture

734 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1984

The regulations establish that the hearing officer is a nearby district director. … Premature foreclosures clearly dis-serve the Act’s purpose of providing decent housing. 3.

Frank A. Walls v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2025

He then argued that he qualified for a stay because his claim “hinge[d] on complex questions concerning [his] cardiopulmonary health, his susceptibility to the torturous condition of pulmonary edema, … Walls faces a difficult burden in establishing that the district court likely abused its discretion.

United States v. Richard D. Fernandez, Jr., United States of America v. Steven E. Granger

58 F.3d 593 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1995

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court’s factual finding is not clearly erroneous. … Robinson, 935 F.2d 201, 205 (11th Cir.1991) (“This court reviews the trial court’s determination of the quantity of drugs used to establish a base offense level for sentencing purposes under the clearly erroneous standard

Durr v. Shinseki

638 F.3d 1342 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2011

The VA has a clear, established policy of not applying the probationary period set out in § 7403(b)(1) to temporary appointments under § 7405, and for that reason does not credit temporary service under § 7405 toward the … results inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute ‘if giving the 13 words of a statute their plain and ordinary meaning produces a result that is not just unwise but is clearly

Douglas v. Wainwright

714 F.2d 1532 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1983

Further, although we doubt that protection of the morality of the general public could qualify as a sufficient reason for even a partial closure, United States v. … Appellant more clearly made this claim in the state supreme court in state post-conviction relief proceedings.

United States v. Armando Antonio Castro

736 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2013

Ct. at 2143, 2148, the Supreme Court did not immunize violations of Rule 11(c)(1) from appellate scrutiny. … See Tr. of Oral Arg. 47 (Counsel for the Government acknowledged that if there is a “serious [Rule 11(c)(1) ] error,” and the defendant pleads guilty “right after that,” the error would likely qualify as

Roland Markland Matthews v. Barry K. Gaither

902 F.2d 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

There is no evidence that the misstatement was made in bad faith in order to qualify Matthews for in forma pauper-is status when he was not entitled to that status. 5 In fact, Matthews willingly sent his account records, … This statement clearly implied that any dismissal would be without prejudice.

Valle v. Singer

655 F.3d 1223 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2011

of harm' 13 that qualifies as cruel and unusual." … intolerable risk of harm' that qualifies as cruel and unusual."

Capital Asset Research v. Finnegan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1998

Neither of these considerations finds adequate support in the record to qualify as a trade secret. … It is true that the testimony at trial established that the public records do not indicate the dates on which the owners made payments.

United States v. Sanford Eugene Johnson, III

980 F.3d 1364 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2020

And as noted, Defendant does not contest the number of shipments, which fact is clearly established by the documentary evidence in this case. Instead, he challenges the amount of marijuana shipped in each package. … Once awarded the two-level reduction under § 3E.1.1(a) for having clearly accepted responsibility for his offense, a defendant may qualify for an additional one-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(b) if the Government

Christopher Lee Price v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

920 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2019

risk of harm’ that qualifies as cruel and unusual” punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment. … In short, the district court clearly erred when it concluded Price had satisfied his burden to establish that nitrogen hypoxia would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain.

Adefemi v. Ashcroft

358 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2004

The crossed-out word is not clearly discernible, though it might represent the word "days.” Nothing has been written in an additional blank space left for specifying the place of confinement. … The INS might have established the conviction by a wide range of alternative means.

Stephen Alexander v. City of Muscle Shoals, AL

444 F. App'x 343 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 2011

Alexander also failed to establish good cause to amend his complaint. See Sosa v. Airprint Sys., Inc., 133 F.3d 1417, 1418 (11th Cir. 1998). … The district court correctly granted summary judgment in favor of the deputies on the ground of qualified immunity.

United States v. Ramon Milian-Rodriguez

759 F.2d 1558 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 1985

Thus the district court’s finding that consent was limited to files and books was clearly erroneous. … The case law clearly establishes that the timely filing of a motion for rehearing can render the dismissal of an indictment non-final, and extend the period during which an appeal may be taken, regardless of whether such

Catalyst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Xavier Becerra

14 F.4th 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2021

LEMS and the Competing Drugs Firdapse and Ruzurgi Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (“LEMS”) is a rare autoimmune disease that causes the immune system to attack the body’s own tissues. … Indeed, “Congress is ‘not required to define each and every word in a piece of legislation in order to express clearly its will.’” Id. (quoting Newsom v. Friedman, 76 F.3d 813, 817 (7th Cir. 1996)).

United States v. Quezada

439 F. App'x 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 2011

The district court did not clearly err in denying Quezada’s motion because Quezada received notice of the pending forfeiture and did not produce evidence showing that he followed the instructions in the notice for asserting … Potes Ramirez, 260 F.3d 1310, 1315-16 (11th Cir. 2001).2 AFFIRMED. 2 “Sovereign immunity protects the government from lawsuits for damages unless immunity is expressly waived by statute.”

United States v. Doris Crabtree

878 F.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 3, 2018

Many of these patients did not qualify for PHP treatment. … This was clearly disruptive to the trial proceedings.

AIG Centennial Insurance Company v. J. Brian O'Neill

782 F.3d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2015

We cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous. Elementary mathematics explains why. … The insurance policy we consider here, without doubt, qualifies as a maritime contract. Ins. Co. v. Dunham, 78 U.S. 1, 33-34 , 11 Wall. 1 , 20 L.Ed. 90 (1870).

David Kentner v. City of Sanibel

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2014

Paulsen Florida Qualified Personal Residence Trust, Jerry’s Enterprises, Inc. (d.b.a. Jerry’s Foods, Inc.), Lowell T. … City of Bainbridge Island, 683 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that “to establish a substantive due process violation, the Samsons must show that Bainbridge’s ordinances establishing and extending the moratorium

Rodney Keister v. Stuart Bell

29 F.4th 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 25, 2022

Keister is not claiming that his preaching and leafletting qualified as a spon- taneous or counter-event. … In a nutshell, the Policy’s exception for “casual recreational and social activities” is not unconstitutionally vague, and Keister’s actions clearly did not qualify for this exception. 3.