Case law

Nipper v. Smith

39 F.3d 1494 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

Those candidates may not represent perfection to every minority voter, but minority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground, the virtue of which is not to be slighted … Escambia County, 748 F.2d 1037, 1041 (Former 5th Cir.1984) 48 The Fourteenth Amendment states, in pertinent part, that "[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

MidAmerica C2L Incorporated v. Siemens Energy, Inc.

25 F.4th 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 15, 2022

Regarding an expert’s qualifications, we have explained that: we observe that experts may be qualified in various ways. … [O]ur caselaw plainly establishes that one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony.” 326 F.3d at 1341–42.

Shinn v. Commissioner of Social Security

391 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 30, 2004

Sections 416.924(a) and 416.924a(a) clearly authorize an ALJ to consider nonmedical evidence. … Although the applicant’s mother and grandmother “clearly indicated that [the applicant’s] pain episodes were recurrent and severe . . .

Bateman v. Mnemonics, Inc.

79 F.3d 1532 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 22, 1996

On remand, the district court should clearly instruct the juiy on this important legal distinction, should a factual dispute exist on this issue. See United States v. … Such an instance would not warrant a finding of literal code copying, but could constitute an infringement of the portion of the screen display that properly qualified for protection. .

32 Fair empl.prac.cas. 702, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,814 Lewis K. Coker v. Amoco Oil Company, a Corporation, Lewis K. Coker v. Amoco Oil Company, a Corporation Standard Oil Company (Indiana), a Corporation

709 F.2d 1433 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 1983

In order to establish that a fictitious resident defendant has been fraudulently joined, the removing party must show either that there is no possibility that the plaintiff would be able to establish a cause of action against … The record clearly shows, however, that Coker was aware of facts that would have suggested Bearden's and Hargrove's possible involvement.

William Anthony Brooks v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center, Respondent

762 F.2d 1383 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1985

But this principle, too, must be qualified, because the retributive justification requires that the penalty be imposed only on those deserving of society’s ultimate sanction, see Gregg v. … Giglio, 405 U.S. 150 , 92 S.Ct. 763 , 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (state suppression of information concerning immunity for prosecution witness); Brady v.

United States v. Abdoulaye Barry

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2026

The evidence does not establish that he should have known of other secondary members or other users of the accounts. … “Whether a co-conspirator’s act was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant so that it qualifies as relevant conduct is a question of fact reviewed for clear error.” United States v.

Nausheen Zainulabeddin v. University of South Florida Board of Trustees

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 5, 2018

Specter’s failure to inform her that she qualified for disability accommodations in October 2010. … Although Florida has generally waived immunity for torts, it has retained immunity for torts committed in bad faith by its employees. Fla. Stat. § 768.28(9).

In re Jones

830 F.3d 1295 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2016

Nor did either the Seventh Circuit in Bennett or the Fourth Circuit in Williams attempt to rely on this argument to support or qualify their respective holdings. … Our Court also wrongly decided on the fly whether certain of these and other substitute convictions qualified under either the enumerated crimes or elements clauses.

John Stephen Ravan v. Corporal Althea Addison Jackson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 2023

Finally, they argued that they were entitled to qualified immunity because there was no case clearly establishing that their conduct was unconstitutional. … The officer defendants are not entitled to qualified immun- ity.

First Alabama Bank of Montgomery, N.A. v. Parsons Steel, Inc.

825 F.2d 1475 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 1987

The district court interpreted the Supreme Court’s mandate in Parsons III as requiring that the district court measure the appropriateness of an injunction in this case under the standards established by Younger v. … The Supreme Court clearly did not reach the issue of the propriety of the injunction in Parsons III.

United States v. Berson Marius

678 F. App'x 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2017

Because the government proved that there were firearms in proximity to drug trafficking by Marius and his coconspirators, the burden shifted to Marius to establish that it was “clearly improbable” that the firearms were … Evidence also established that Marius was responsible for repairing the house. See id.

Old West Annuity and Life v. The Apollo Group

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 4, 2010

The bankruptcy court granted the Government relief from the stay to establish and enforce tax liens against the Campground. … Singletary, 62 F.3d 1295, 1298 n.2 (11th Cir. 1995) (“Issues not clearly raised in the briefs are considered abandoned.”).

Coleman v. Director, OWCP

345 F.3d 861 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2003

In recognition of that fact, the Labor Department’s regulations permit a miner whose first claim has been denied to pursue a later claim for benefits, provided the miner can establish a change in conditions of entitlement … Coleman’s claim was clearly barred. See 20 C.F.R. §§ 725.309(d), 310(a). Moreover, assuming that Mrs.

Scott Winfield Davis v. Eric Sellers

940 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 10, 2019

We may grant a writ of habeas corpus on such a claim only where the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court … A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either “arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme Court] on a question of law” or “decides a case differently

United States v. Alred

144 F.3d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1998

In this case, Sconiers would not talk with the government until he received his grand jury subpoena and an offer of immunity. … Because Sconiers had refused to cooperate with the government investigation of the extensive marijuana distribution operation'in Holmes County until he was subpoenaed by the grand jury and received immunity, obtaining ■ his

Luis W. LeBron v. Secretary, Florida Departtment of Children and Families

710 F.3d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2013

Although we review the district court’s grant of a preliminary injunction for an abuse of discretion, underlying questions of law are reviewed de novo, and the district court’s factual determinations cannot be disturbed unless clearly … That is not to say that there cannot be other governmental needs that are sufficiently substantial to qualify as a special need for Fourth Amendment purposes.

Harris v. Garner

216 F.3d 970 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 27, 2000

In light of today's decision, whenever Congress enacts a statute that qualifies the right of a person to "bring" or "commence" or "institute" an action under federal law, district courts in the Eleventh Circuit will have … sua sponte a plaintiff's action if it is "frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."

United States v. Williams

456 F.3d 1353 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2006

. § 2Dl.l(c)(6). 2 Williams’ multiple prior felony convictions for drug offenses qualified him as a career offender under § 4Bl.l(a). … There is no dispute that Williams qualified as a career offender under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1.

Patricia Hughes v. Kia Motors Corporation

766 F.3d 1317 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2014

Cir. 2004) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks And thus, based on this factual finding, the court’s legal conclusion—that Burton did not follow his methodology and thus his opinion is unreliable—is not clearly … Because the court properly applied the law and did not make clearly erroneous factual findings in reaching its decision to exclude Burton’s opinion, we hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in excluding his testimony