Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,466 results
1.26s
746 F.2d 705 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1984
The rule is firmly established that the trial judge cannot direct a verdict in favor of the government for all or even one element of a crime. … The responsibility to find the second element of the offense was clearly the jury’s under the charge as given. Id. (citations omitted).
Cited 41 timesPublishedAdventure 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.
Cited 251 timesPublishedUnited States v. Rodney Leroy Brown
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2026
Brown argues that under plain error review, Smith is clearly on point and demonstrates that Aguilar’s testimony violated the Confrontation Clause. … As a result of this error, Brown received an enhancement for which he otherwise would not have qualified.
Cited 0 timesPublishedOriginal Appalachian Artworks, Inc. v. The Toy Loft, Inc.
684 F.2d 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 3, 1982
The record clearly establishes, for example, that it was not until February 1978 that Roberts had a doll which he considered suitable as a pattern for all future dolls. … According to our prior precedents, this finding is factual and must be upheld unless clearly erroneous. Dallas Cap & Emblem, supra, 510 F.2d at 1012 . The finding is not clearly erroneous.
Cited 17 timesPublishedTerry Properties, Inc. v. Standard Oil Co. (Ind)
799 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1986
As was the policy and practice in Roanoke, the Council did not require that a buffer zone be established between this property and the Hillcrest Community. … They complain that Amoco Fabrics was not required to establish a buffer zone between Roanoke Mills and Hillcrest Community, yet the Terrys were not required to establish a buffer zone between the Terry Manufacturing Company
Cited 3 timesPublished544 F.3d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 7, 2008
The Court listed fifteen salient facts “that clearly establish[ed] that a rational juror would find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. … Taking the last argument first, the trial evidence, as the panel in the first appeal of Jackson’s case observed, “clearly establish[ed] that a rational juror would find beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr.
Abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Michael Francis DiFalco, 837 F.3d 1207 (2016)Cited 19 timesPublished190 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1999
If it did, we would have to rule unconstitutional our doctrines of absolute and qualified immunity. We therefore join the Seventh and D.C. … To argue that these cases establish some general right to a damages remedy for every claimed constitutional violation, however, is to sweep too broadly.
Cited 0 timesPublishedJoseph Richard Redner v. Charles S. Dean, Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida, Robert A. Butterworth
29 F.3d 1495 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1994
Immunity from Prosecution. … The second interpretation of "prompt judicial review" has been articulated most clearly by the Seventh Circuit in Graff v.
Cited 81 timesPublishedLoyd P. Cadwell v. Kaufman, Englett & Lynd, PLLC
886 F.3d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2018
Among those provisions is 11 U.S.C. § 526(a), which “establishes several rules of professional conduct for persons qualifying as debt relief agencies,” including lawyers. Id. at 233. … That makes little sense, it seems to us, particularly in light of other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code that clearly contemplate that attorneys will get paid for bankruptcy-related services.
Cited 8 timesPublishedSEC v. Unique Financial Concepts
196 F.3d 1195 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1999
Thus, in order to qualify as an investment contract, “it is enough that the [parties] merely offer the essential ingredients of an investment contract.” Howey, 328 5 In Bonner v. … This language clearly presents an offer for an investment in a common enterprise and thus supports the common enterprise prong of the Howey test.6 2.
Cited 3 timesPublishedSusan Lee Weissinger v. James C. White
733 F.2d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 1984
The foregoing authority clearly expresses the historical policy of federal deference to state taxing power. … of the current use value of any eligible taxable property and procedures for qualifying such property for assessment at its current use value. 6 .
Cited 15 timesPublished572 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 29, 2009
Indeed, prior to the holding in Bank of Nova Scotia we had held that, even if a grand jury heard immunized testimony, an indictment would not be dismissed if the use of the prohibited evidence was harmless. … It is well-established that, “[t]o punish a person because he has done what the law plainly allows him to do is a due process violation of the most basic sort.” United States v.
Cited 112 timesPublishedUnited States v. John Hoang CAO
220 F. App'x 902 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2007
A district court’s sentencing determinations of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor-role adjustment and whether a defendant possessed a firearm are findings of fact that we review for clear error. … Moreover, Officer Breedy noted that when Nguyen made the statements, they were made against his own interest, because he had not been given immunity. 8 1,000 pills on another
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedMarquard v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
429 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 10, 2005
We review the Florida courts’ legal conclusions to determine if they were contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). … Thus, the Florida Supreme Court’s decision is not “contrary to” clearly established federal law. C.
Cited 76 timesPublished79 F.3d 1065 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 1996
It is well established that the USAM only provides guidance to officials at the Department of Justice and does not have the force of law. U.S. v. … "clearly one of fact and must be resolved by the trier of fact." San Pedro Order of Aug. 23, 1993 at 5.
Cited 32 timesPublishedSobner Felix v. Key Largo Management Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 29, 2021
“To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he is disabled; (2) he is a qualified individual; and (3) he was subjected to unlawful discrimi- nation because of his disability … standing, lift- ing, bending, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, concentrating, thinking, communicating, and working” as well as “the operation of a major bodily function, including but not limited to, functions of the immune
Cited 0 timesUnpublished505 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 24, 2007
a “navigable water” even if the jury also concluded that Avondale Creek flowed “only intermittently.”19 But under Justice Scalia’s test, that error may well have been harmless, because Wagoner, the EPA investigator, clearly … In other words, Robison certified that other qualified persons had prepared the documents and advised him of the documents’ accuracy.
Cited 64 timesPublished911 F.2d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1990
The bankruptcy court established January 15, 1985, as the claim bar date. The IRS, despite having notice of the proceedings, filed no claim. … A similar conclusion is clearly appropriate in this case. 22 Post-confirmation taxes are not recoverable as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 503 . In United States v.
Cited 1 timesPublishedUnited States v. Stephen Cometa
966 F.3d 1285 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2020
Counsel also qualified that when he said Cometa was competent before the first arraignment he had not reviewed Dr. … And it found that Cometa was “clearly physically and mentally capable of testifying” and was coherent and understood his rights, even though he was “pretending not to be able to.”
Cited 7 timesPublishedUnited States v. Rosa Enedia Pazos Cingari
952 F.3d 1301 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2020
The government also points to the language of the Guidelines commentary, which states that the cross reference applies only when a defendant’s conduct qualifies as an offense “involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly … the conduct established “an offense more aptly covered by another guideline.”
Cited 42 timesPublished
Ask Donna