Case law

Amal Eghnayem v. Boston Scientific Corporation

873 F.3d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2017

“A joint trial is appropriate where there is clearly substantial overlap in the issues, facts, evidence, and witnesses required for claims against multiple defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. … Quite simply, BSC cannot establish that it was prejudiced by the consolidation of the plaintiffs’ suits.

Ledford Gregory v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company

764 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1985

Clarke told them that they did not have enough money to qualify for a contract with a guaranteed rate of interest and recommended one with a floating interest rate instead. … Defendant notes that the preliminary application clearly contemplated a written contract which would contain "terms and provisions acceptable to both said insurance company and the applicant."

United States v. John Dale Ramsdale, Charles Christoferson

61 F.3d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 1995

Furthermore, “[t]here can, of course, be more than one person who qualifies as a leader or organizer of a criminal association or conspiracy.” Id. … Ramsdale also claims that there was an impermissible variance between the allegations in the indictment and the facts established at trial. See United States v.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Stahl

89 F.3d 1510 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 1996

If Congress had intended to establish a uniform gross negligence standard of liability in § 1821(k), it certainly could have done so more clearly. … As articulated clearly by the court in Casey v.

George Ruhlen v. Holiday Haven Homeowners, Inc.

28 F.4th 226 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 9, 2022

Moreover, it is well established that district courts may address questions of subject mat- ter jurisdiction sua sponte. … An order denying a mo- tion to remand would obviously not qualify as a “final decision” and would therefore ordinarily be unappealable. 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

Dr. Bernd Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State of Florida

797 F.3d 859 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2015

The Court has not clearly established the evidentiary requirements necessary to survive the second prong of intermediate scrutiny, but Went For It explains that if the State presents “no studies,” and “the record [does] not … The Act clearly relates more closely to the political speech ban.

Peoples Gas System v. Posen Construction, Inc.

931 F.3d 1337 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2019

Posen moved to dismiss, claiming that PGS’s damages do not qualify as a “loss” under the statute, and because the Act does not provide a statutory right to indemnification. … The distinction between the instant case and Martinez should be obvious: The language of the Act is clearly ambiguous with multiple reasonable interpretations.

Lauderdale v. Director, Office Of Workers' Compensation Program

940 F.2d 618 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 30, 1991

All three doctors were "B-readers": physicians who have been found specially qualified to assess x-rays for evidence of pneumoconiosis. … We think there is clearly substantial evidence in the record to support this conclusion. 13 In light of the inconclusive medical evidence, the ALJ went on to consider lay evidence in attempting to establish Lauderdale's date

Gregory v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance

764 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 9, 1985

Clarke told them that they did not have enough money to qualify for a contract with a guaranteed rate of interest and recommended one with a floating interest rate instead. … Defendant notes that the preliminary application clearly contemplated a written contract which would contain “terms and provisions acceptable to both said insurance company and the applicant.”

National Wildlife Federation v. John O. Marsh, Secretary of the Army

747 F.2d 616 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 27, 1984

Sections 570.302(b)(2) and (3) become operative only when a program consists of individual projects qualifying for funds under the latter two criteria. … Finally, although "the view of a later Congress does not establish definitively the meaning of an earlier enactment ... it does have persuasive value," Bell v.

United States v. Enrique Vinales

564 F. App'x 518 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 2, 2014

Stat. § 316.1935(2) qualifies as a “violent felony” under the ACCA). … Vinales’ other prior convictions qualify as predicate offenses.

United States v. Mikel Alemin Craig

706 F. App'x 545 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2017

“‘Plain’ error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal.” United States v. Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). … Because (1) an error is “plain” only when the legal rule is clearly established, and (2) there is no precedent from the Supreme Court or this Court directly resolving this issue, there is no plain error here. 2 See Hesser

United States v. Mark Willner, M.D.

795 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2015

The Government contends that a deliberate ignorance instruction is permissible in conspiracy cases in order to establish knowledge of the unlawful purpose, but not to establish that the defendant willfully joined the conspiracy … These circuits conclude that a deliberate ignorance instruction is permissible to establish that a defendant knew of the unlawful purpose of the conspiracy, but not to establish that he willfully joined in the conspiracy

Nicholson v. Gant, II

816 F.2d 591 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 7, 1987

and good faith immunity. … The record reveals that Nicholson clearly expressed her desire not to read the prepared statement at the political rally.

Elling O. Eide v. Sarasota County, a Political Subdivision of the State of Florida

908 F.2d 716 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1990

To qualify for this exception to the final decision requirement, at least two circuits demand submission of one meaningful zoning application. See Unity Ventures v. … In footnote 4, the Supreme Court clearly stated that it was not addressing a substantive due process claim (i.e., what we refer to in this opinion as an arbitrary and capricious due process claim).

United States v. William A. Tendrich

638 F. App'x 980 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2016

The documents establish the charge, the relevant elements of the charge, and that Mr. Tendrich pled guilty. … Rather, he contends that the log entries do not clearly establish the crimes for which he was convicted.

Robert R. Turner v. Sharon W. Jordan

117 F.4th 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 2024

A property appraiser’s de- cision to grant or remove an exemption is subject to the appraiser’s “sound discretion” that the “property either factually qualifies or factually does not qualify for the … established const[it]utional rights.”

Ever Higgins v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

196 F. App'x 781 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2006

Fairbanks North Star Borough School Dist., 323 F.3d 1185, 1194 (CA92003) (holding that qualifications evidence standing alone may establish pretext where the plaintiff’s qualifications are “clearly superior” to those of … Plaintiff has not presented sufficient evidence to establish pretext. (footnote omitted).

Brooks v. United States

837 F.2d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 17, 1988

From the oral and written orders on the Rule 41(b) motion and the motion to dismiss, it comes through clearly that the trial judge was unwilling to accept Dr. Van Ore's testimony. … The court found that in order to establish that Dr.

Carmichael v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

572 F.3d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

See, e.g., McMahon, 502 F.3d at 1358 (“Nevertheless, it is clear that not even military judgments are completely immune from judicial review.”); see also Gilligan v. … According to Carmichael, this is because the record clearly establishes that Irvine’s negligence alone caused the accident.