Case law

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).

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.”

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

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.

United States v. Fred W. Sans, Frank A. Weaner, Raymond O. McDonald Jr.

731 F.2d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 1984

This argument is clearly without merit. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to support a conviction based on either of the other two objections of the conspiracy, however.

Ziahonna Teagan v. The City of McDonough, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 2021

She contends that the district court erred in assuming that the City had judicial immunity from liability. … Further, she claims that the doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply because her constitutional rights were violated, and her rights were established at the time of her arrest.

Barnes v. Broward Cty. Sheriff

190 F.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1999

Although the Court of Appeals determined that Helms’ conviction constituted a violation of due process, the district court, on remand, found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. … defendants from implementing zoning 3 We do not foreclose the possibility that an employment discrimination plaintiff who receives only injunctive relief may be entitled to attorney’s fees where the plaintiff establishes

Andrews v. Lakeshore Rehabilitation Hospital

140 F.3d 1405 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1998

We agree with the district court that these arguments also fail because the provisions for joinder of parties under Rules 19 and 21 are not immune from statutes of limitations. … Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 87 F.3d 256, 258 (8th Cir.1996) (listing the elements of a section 1981 retaliation claim before holding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case). .

James River Insurance Company v. Ultratec Special Effects Inc

22 F.4th 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2022

The insurer has the burden of establishing that an exclusion excludes coverage for a claim. Acceptance Ins. Co. v. Brown, 832 So. 2d 1, 12 (Ala. 2001). … Using that provision to interpret the exclusion, the Court stated that “the un- qualified word ‘insured’” in the exclusion at issue “means only the person claiming coverage.” Id.

United States v. Kevin Ratliff

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2024

To establish extraordinary and compelling reasons, Ratliff looked to § 1B1.13 of the Sentencing Guidelines. … Because he did not establish an extraordinary and compelling reason under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13(b), he was not eligible for a sentence reduction.

United States v. Diaz

26 F.3d 1533 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 1994

Burke, 738 F.2d 1225, 1227-28 (11th Cir.1984) (sufficient information elicited where jury knows a witness has been granted immunity, participated in the witness protection program, and received money from the government). … Accordingly, the district court did not clearly err by finding that the prosecutor offered a race-neutral reason for striking Portis from the jury. D.

Jonathan Mullane v. Federico A. Moreno

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 2025

into whether absolute immunity is war- ranted in a particular context.” … This court has not yet established a standard for deciding whether a plaintiff is entitled to discovery to challenge such a certification. See Omnipol, 32 F.4th at 1310 (Jordan, J., concurring).

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.

United States v. Anthony Alexander Bridgewater

333 F. App'x 470 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2009

The district court found, however, that the two sales constituted two separate qualifying convictions. … “The Government bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence the facts necessary to support a sentencing enhancement.

Winter v. Hollingsworth Properties, Inc.

777 F.2d 1444 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 11, 1985

We held that dismissal was premature and that the plaintiffs had to be given an opportunity to establish facts sufficient to support jurisdiction. … For a transaction to qualify for this exemption, the purchaser must be a person who plans to subsequently sell or lease the lot(s) in the normal course of business.

United States v. Adams

1 F.3d 1566 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 1993

Whether the evidence established multiple conspiracies instead of only one. 1 III. DISCUSSION A. … “To qualify as harmless, an error must not contribute to the defendant’s conviction.” Owen, 849 F.2d at 540 .

Alexis Viera Borges v. United States

652 F. App'x 824 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2016

To prove negligence, Borges had to establish that the Coast Guard owed him a duty that it breached and that was the proximate cause of his injury and that he “suffered actual harm.” Franza v. … We cannot say the district court clearly erred in finding that the medical personnel “provided reasonable medical treatment” and that there was “no evidence . . . of negligence.” See Krys v.

United States v. Steven Michael Marks

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2025

Marks had the burden to establish that he was incompetent. Mr. … In other words, the standard of proof establishes the metaphysical evidentiary line that must be crossed for a judge or jury to establish a fact.

Sherryl Snodgrass Caffey v. State of Alabama

243 F. App'x 505 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2007

Caffey does not challenge this ruling on appeal. 6 Defendant Blakely in his individual capacity based on qualified immunity. … First, the mere fact that Caffey was placed in a holding cell that had a window on the door and a camera in the cell for surveillance does not establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Harris v.

Forehand v. Florida State Hospital at Chattahoochee

89 F.3d 1556 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 1996

Accordingly, based on the limited record, we are unable to determine whether the special master’s findings were clearly erroneous. … See Payne, 673 F.2d at 826 (holding that the court’s decision to accept one party’s statistical evidence was not clearly erroneous).