Case law

Henry E. Adams v. Cobb County School District

242 F. App'x 616 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2007

immunity. … Under that framework, Adams must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination. See Crawford v. City of Fairburn, Ga., 482 F.3d 1305, 1309 (11th Cir. 2007).

United States v. Roger Ross

686 F. App'x 691 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2017

Once qualified, an expert witness has latitude to offer his opinion, so long as his testimony establishes that he has “a reliable basis in the knowledge and experience of his discipline” to provide an opinion. … The district court did not clearly err when it determined that a conspiracy existed because Ross’s own statements established the existence of a conspiracy by the preponderance of the evidence.

Bingham, Ltd. v. United States

724 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 1984

The first problem relates to the adequacy of the established factual basis upon which the district court resolved a difficult question of statutory construction. … Although this exemption clearly was designed to accommodate sporting enthusiasts, see H.R. Rep.

Federal Trade Commission v. National Urological Group, Inc.

785 F.3d 477 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2015

scientific evidence” to mean “tests, analyses, research, studies, or other evidence based on the expertise of professionals in the relevant area, that has been conducted and evaluated in an objective manner by persons qualified … 9  Case: 14-13131 Date Filed: 05/05/2015 Page: 10 of 13 unreasonable or incorrect manner, follows improper procedures in making a determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly

Alan Dershowitz v. Cable News Network, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2025

And Begala wrote that “[t]he Dershowitz Doctrine would make presidents immune from every criminal act.” … As research progressed, the authors ignored materials except those that were derogatory of Goldwater—even when complimentary statements expressly qualified the derogatory ones. Id.

S.H. v. Edwards

860 F.2d 1045 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 28, 1988

Although the Supreme Court vacated our judgment in Donaldson because this court had not considered the qualified immunity defense, the Court indicated that our opinion was deprived of any prece-dential force. … Nowhere did the district court consider the validity of this claim, a claim clearly made out in the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

Barbara A. Brackin v. Kevin J. Anson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2014

Marine Resources gathers information through surveying and other methods for the purpose of managing recreational fishing activities, such as establishing harvest seasons and setting quantity and size limits. … Third, they assert that Defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the individual-capacity claims. A.

Zaben v. Air Products & Chemicals

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 3, 1997

And if you looked at past experience, clearly, Mr. Zaben had it all over Mr. Parker. A: Not on social and leadership skills. (Gebbia Dep. at 35-36). … These ambiguous responses clearly do not establish that Gebbia looked only at Parker’s “future” with the company in deciding to select Zaben for termination.

Thomas Johnson v. City of Clanton

200 F. App'x 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2006

United States, 341 U.S. 97, 71 S.Ct. 576 (1951), clearly establishes that appellant here was a state actor. … Under the assumed facts, the district court did not err in denying qualified immunity with respect to plaintiff’s excessive force claim. Lee v. Ferraro, 284 F.3d 1188 (11th Cir. 2002); Slicker v.

Florida Department of Banking & Finance v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

760 F.2d 1135 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 20, 1985

establish intrastate branches. … It suffices that Florida has spoken clearly that it does not want out-of-state bank holding companies to establish banking operations in Florida. 17 To approve the U.S.

William R. Tinnerman v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2022

For its motion for summary affirmance relating to Claims III and IV, the government argues that the court lacks jurisdiction because Tinnerman did not meet the requirements to qualify for a sovereign immunity waiver under … We grant the government’s motion for summary affirmance as to the dismissal of Claims III and IV because its position is clearly correct as a matter of law.

Georgia, Department of Medical Assistance ex rel. Toal v. Shalala

8 F.3d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 9, 1993

The Medicaid statute does not clearly state whether the less restrictive methodology permitted by § 1396a is to be defined within the parameters set by § 1396b. … medicare beneficiaries) and (ii) (qualified disabled and working individuals). *1567 HCFA rejected the amendment for all but § 1396a(a)(10)(E)(i), for whom the plan amendment was approved because the FFP statutory maximum

United States v. Priscilla Ann Ellis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2020

appropriate either where time is of the essence, such as “situations where important public policy issues are involved or those where rights delayed are rights denied,” or where “the position of one of the parties is clearly … Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), federal actors enjoy qualified immunity for acts done in the actor’s official capacity. Corr. Serv. Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 72 (2001).

Richard Baker v. Big Star Division of the Grand Union Company, Connecticut General Life Insurance Company, Great-West Life Assurance Company

893 F.2d 288 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 29, 1990

receiving disability benefits for two years, a covered employee will remain eligible for monthly benefits under the Plan only if he or she is “totally disabled” or “unable to perform any occupation for which [he or she] is qualified … An insurance company does not become an ERISA “fiduciary” simply by performing administrative functions and claims processing within a framework of rules established by an employer, Gelardi v.

Donovan G. Davis, Jr. v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 2025

Thus, “[u]se and derivative-use immunity establishes the critical threshold to over- come an individual’s invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.” … In other words, the agreement clearly did not provide derivative use immunity.

Adventure Outdoors, Inc. v. Michael Bloomberg

552 F.3d 1290 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2008

Court highlighted several factors that supported the exercise of jurisdiction in Grable: “The dispute there centered on the action of a federal agency (IRS) and its compatibility with a federal statute, the question qualified … The facts of this case clearly trigger the Hepps rule as expressed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in Mathis.

MCI Worldcom Network Services, Inc. v. Mastec, Inc.

544 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2004

This investment, MCI asserts, should not serve to immunize Mastec 4 from responsibility for the consequences of its actions. … Moreover, Mastec argues, even assuming that the relevant unit of property is the severed cable, and even assuming that the character of its intended use qualifies for loss of use damages under Florida law, MCI must still

Dixon v. Board of Regents of the University System

378 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2010

Furthermore, even if there had been a constitutional violation of Dixon’s First Amendment rights, Vance, the individual defendant, would have been entitled to qualified immunity since it was not clearly established that … Burke County, Ga., 239 F.3d 1216, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001) (“[O]nly in the rarest of cases will reasonable government officials truly know that the termination or discipline of a public employee violated ‘clearly established

Omar Blanco v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

688 F.3d 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2012

The statutory phrase “clearly established Federal law” refers only to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. … As a result, the trial court did not act contrary to clearly established Federal law, and its decision was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

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.