Case law

United States v. Charles W. Brunty

701 F.2d 1375 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 1983

Conspicuously, the operative term “transfer” is nowhere qualified or limited, by the phrase “of possession” or otherwise. … We observe sua sponte that the district court erred, to the defendant’s advantage, in failing to instruct the jury that the government need only establish proper venue by a preponderance of evidence, not by proof beyond a

Arthur Quiller, Lillie Mae Quiller, and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Barclays American/credit, Inc.

727 F.2d 1067 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 1984

Nevertheless, a complaint may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) when its own allegations indicate the existence of an affirmative defense, so long as the defense clearly appears on the face of the complaint. … We therefore hold that the Quiller contract does not qualify for protection under the preemption statute.

United States v. Villarreal

613 F.3d 1344 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2010

The record establishes that the three individuals arrested in connection with the Florida drug bust—Jesus Rodriguez Diaz, Mario Ruiz, and Israel Cantu—all implicated Villarreal. … To qualify 29 as an organizer or leader for purposes of U.S.S.G. § 3B.1.1(a)’s enhancement, the defendant “must have been the organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of one or more

Lawson v. Singletary

85 F.3d 502 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 1996

immunity will bar any claim for damages. … There is clearly no per se bar to censorship of incoming prisoners' mail. See Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401 , 109 S.Ct. 1874 , 104 L.Ed.2d 459 (1989); Turner v.

Lindsey v. Navistar International Transportation Corp.

150 F.3d 1307 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 14, 1998

This, however, does not render the district court's finding of proximate cause clearly erroneous. … Atlanta Center Ltd., 219 Ga.App. 422, 465 S.E.2d 456 (1995) ("When a party is relying on inferences to prove a point, not only must those inferences tend in some proximate degree to establish the conclusion sought, but

Kenneth Palmer v. Robert A. McDonald

624 F. App'x 699 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

However, the antiretaliation provision “cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.” Id. at 68. … “Establishing a constructive discharge claim is a more onerous task than establishing a hostile work environment claim.” Bryant v. Jones, 575 F.3d 1281, 1298 (11th Cir. 2009).

United States v. Fischer

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 1999

For example, evidence introduced at the trial in this case clearly established that, in 1993, WVHA received between ten and fifteen million dollars under the federal Medicare assistance program. … The finance director’s testimony did not clearly establish whether WVHA received funds directly from the Medicare program or received funds as an assignee under Part B or even Part A of the federal program.

United States v. Fischer

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 1999

For example, evidence introduced at the trial in this case clearly established that, in 1993, WVHA received between ten and fifteen million dollars under the federal Medicare assistance program. … The finance director's testimony did not clearly establish whether WVHA received funds directly from the Medicare program or received funds as an assignee under Part B or even Part 9 The Medicare program is divided

Tristan Tanner v. Stryker Corporation of Michigan

104 F.4th 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

Neither party here argues that the DOL regulations are not due deference— rather, both sides contend that the regulations make their respective positions clearly correct. … Here, subparagraph (a)(2) contains much more information than (a)(1) does, qualifying the scope of the leave that (a)(1) generally provides.

United States v. Jorge Guerra

293 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2002

The statute does not specify the means by which the Government may establish that the marks were “identical or substantially indistinguishable.” … Nor is there a requirement that the actual trademark owner testify in a criminal trial, or that the agent who conducted the investigation and seizure of the counterfeit merchandise be qualified as an expert in the particular

United States v. Said Rum

995 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2021

One of those four that Rum clearly did not meet provided: “IRS did not determine a fraud penalty … due to the failure to report income related to any amount in a foreign account.” I.R.M. § 4.26.16-1. … Thus, as the Third Circuit has held, when imposing a civil penalty for an FBAR violation, willfulness based on recklessness is established if the defendant “(1) clearly ought to have known that (2) there

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States

516 F.3d 1235 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 15, 2008

Nonetheless, the Tribe has not specifically argued that any of the 130 documents (released at the discretion of the EPA OGC and Assistant Regional Administrator Wright) fail to qualify for a privilege. … The court reiterates, however, that the Tribe has not asserted that any one of the 130 documents would not have qualified for a privilege.

Daniel v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

822 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 2016

Daniel’s 2003 trial demonstrates beyond peradventure that clearly established federal law, as well as prevailing professional norms, required Mr. … This reasoning is contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

National Association For The Advancement Of Colored People (Naacp) v. Guy Hunt

891 F.2d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 16, 1990

Appellant Alvin Holmes clearly falls into this category. He was the plaintiff in Holmes v. Wallace; he is a plaintiff/appellant in this action. … Clause of the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing religion.

Diamond Crystal Brands, Inc. v. Food Movers International Inc.

593 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2010

Diamond Crystal Sales, LLC is a Delaware limited liability sales company qualified to do business in Georgia and is under common ownership with Diamond Crystal Brands. … At the outset, we underscore that the minimum contacts analysis is “‘immune to solution by checklist.’” Sloss Indus. 30 Corp. v.

Gorss Motels, Inc. v. Safemark Systems, LP

931 F.3d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2019

The combination of these two provisions in the franchise agreement does not amount to implied permission; it establishes that the hotels “clearly and unmistakably granted by actions or words” permission for Safemark to … From beginning to end, the Act establishes procedures to govern such direct-review proceedings.

Sherri Jefferson v. State Bar of Georgia

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

immunity; (5) collateral estoppel; and (6) failure to state a claim. … immunity; collateral estoppel; and failure to state a claim—were likewise correct.

Polycarpe v. E&S Landscaping Service, Inc.

616 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2010

First, it provided for enterprise-wide coverage rather than coverage of only certain qualifying individual employees. … “[S]elling” and “working on” clearly do; “handling” does as well.

United States v. Ali Shaygan

676 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2012

The Hyde Amendment allows for the extraordinary remedy of invading the public fisc to pay an acquitted criminal defendant’s attorney’s fees, and this rare waiver of sovereign immunity applies only when a court determines … In that earlier version, any acquitted defendant would have been able to receive attorney’s fees unless the government could establish that its position was “substantially justified.” United States v.

Robert Cusick v. Yellowbook, Inc.

607 F. App'x 953 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2015

To establish a prima facie case of association discrimination under the ADA, the plaintiff may show: “(1) that [he] was subjected to an adverse employment action; (2) that [he] was qualified for the job at that time; (3 … In fact, reflecting upon his termination and performance, Cusick expressly acknowledged that “[t]he disappointments clearly outweigh the accomplishments.”