Case law

Pollgreen v. Morris

911 F.2d 527 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 1990

The court determined that the owners had conclusively established the defense of duress and that the failure of the INS to consider the defense was “arbitrary, capricious and constituted an abuse of discretion.” … Additionally, the court found that “the exceptional and unusual circumstances present here fit clearly within the flexibility allowed by the statute ... to exceed the statutory base.” Id.

Montano Cisneros v. US Atty. Gen.

514 F.3d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2008

Exceptional Circumstances We first ask whether the BIA abused its discretion in finding petitioners did not establish exceptional circumstances. … The BIA has found claims of ineffective assistance of counsel–in particular, when an applicant’s failure to appear is due to his attorney’s errant instruction–qualify as exceptional circumstances under this section.

United States v. Herman Smith

696 F. App'x 427 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2017

The intervening decision “must be clearly on point.” Id. … establishing that they do not qualify.

United States v. Campbell

223 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2000

First, Campbell cannot establish prejudice because the Customs agent who made the hearsay statement was called as a witness and was thoroughly cross-examined at trial. See Bright, 630 F.2d at 815 . … Furthermore, within the written statement, the agent clearly labeled his opinion as his own, writing, “Agent McKenney explained to the defendant that nobody gives this amount of cocaine to someone they don’t trust.”

Reynolds ex rel. Estate of Lampley v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

989 F.2d 465 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1993

By virtue of his training and experience, he was thoroughly qualified to service multi-piece truck rims and his employer thought him to be a very cautious tire changer. … Implicit in this approach is a recognition that the plaintiff has established a prima facie case. This is consistent with the record.

Hewett v. Jarrard

786 F.2d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 1986

In denying Wade official immunity, under Harlow v. … Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982), the district court necessarily determined that Wade "violate[d] clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person

State of Georgia, Department of Medical Assistance v. Shalala

8 F.3d 1565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 1994

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).

Christopher D. Dyal v. Mr. Pinkston

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2021

AFFIRMED. 4 Given our conclusion that the facts show no Eighth Amendment violation, we also conclude that Defendants -- under the circumstances -- violated no already clearly established right. … So even if we are mistaken about whether the facts might show an Eighth Amendment violation, Defendants would be entitled to qualified immunity from Plaintiff’s damage claims.

Donald C. Maynard v. Pneumatic Products Corp.

256 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

Second, we must decide whether the activities Maynard claims are substantially limited by his back injury qualify as major life activities under the ADA. See id. … Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir. 1996)) (“Although the record clearly indicates that [appellant] suffers an impairment that affects to some degree his ability to walk, he has not ‘adduced sufficient evidence from

Denise Schippers v. United States

715 F.3d 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2013

Having established our jurisdiction over this appeal, we will now consider the merits. Three distinct and, in some respects, novel questions are raised. … The United States has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to claims under the FTCA and has expressly set out that the law of the state “where the act or omission occurred” will control.

United States v. Carlos Rodriguez Nerey

877 F.3d 956 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2017

Yet, as established by filings in the district court, Nerey failed in his motion to lay out the questions he intended to ask or to establish that the T-shirt in question can even be linked with the television program. … The district court’s determination as to the improper benefit conferred was not clearly erroneous. VIII.

Pollinger v. Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board

362 F. App'x 5 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2010

Pollinger maintains that the government did not establish that he was ever sent a notice of deficiency for tax year 2002. Pollinger expressly denies that he was seeking a refund under § 7422. … P. 38 sanctions “against appellants who raise ‘clearly frivolous claims’ in the face of established law and clear facts.” Misabec Mercantile, Inc. De Panama v.

Lawson v. Singletary

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 1996

technicality that their attorneys 5 Plaintiffs' efforts in this litigation have focussed only on obtaining injunctive relief, either because that is their only real interest or because of the likelihood that qualified … immunity will bar any claim for damages.

Elizabeth Steger v. General Electric Co.

318 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2003

GE clearly stated that its “theory of the case” regarding the Equal Pay Act claim was that they had “a salary . . . retention program” which provided for an employee’s salary to be retained when their assignment was changed … The district court stated that it was not inclined to grant the motion because the estate was “clearly adequately represented.

Lifecare International, Inc. v. CD Medical, Inc.

68 F.3d 429 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 1995

Evident Partiality In order to vacate on the ground of evident partiality in a nondisclosure case, the party challenging the arbitration award must establish that the undisclosed facts create a "reasonable impression … With this standard of review in mind, there clearly exists a ground for the Panel's decision.8 In February of 1988, CD Medical and Lifecare negotiated a settlement agreement by means of an offering and an accepting

United States v. Saleem Hakim

30 F.4th 1310 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2022

P. 51(b), by re- quiring him to establish a plain error, see FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b). … It is “incumbent upon the [government] to,” Brewer, 430 U.S. at 404, “clearly establish[] that” the waiver was knowing, Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 4 (1966).

Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster

881 F.2d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 1, 1989

It has long been established that zoning regulations will not be declared unconstitutional as violative of substantive due process unless they “are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the … The award was against the City alone, and not against the Mayor or Council members in their individual capacities, who were found to be entitled to absolute immunity as legislators.

Donald C. Maynard v. Pneumatic Products Corp.

256 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2001

Maynard points to the major life activity of walking, which qualifies as a major life activity under the ADA. See 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i) (1997); Sutton v. … Drexel Univ., 94 F.3d 102, 105 (3d Cir.1996)) ("Although the record clearly indicates that [appellant] suffers an impairment that affects to some degree his ability to walk, he has not 'adduced sufficient evidence from which

Daniel Stermer v. Federated Foundation Trust

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2026

Federated was ultimately “deemed not a qualified bid- der” for the auction. … But Federated failed to clearly raise these arguments below, and we need not consider them on appeal in the first instance. See Finnegan v.

Larkin v. Pullman-Standard Division, Pullman, Inc.

854 F.2d 1549 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 21, 1988

Second, Pullman’s claim that Swint had to be expressly named in the Commissioner’s charge to qualify as an “aggrieved” individual under the statute is specious. … Both of these grounds reflect legal principles well established in this circuit. See, e.g., Giles v.