Case law

Downs v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

333 F. App'x 403 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2009

Even this definition contains terms that are not clearly defined, including “containing,” “consisting of,” and “abounding.” … We find that all such terms are insufficiently concrete to clearly define a quantity, particularly “zero.”

Planned Parenthood Association Of The Atlanta Area, Inc. v. Zell Miller

934 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 1991

Aside from the woman herself, therefore, the physician is uniquely qualified to litigate the constitutionality of the State's interference with, or discrimination against, that decision. … Even if a court official erroneously has entered an incorrect filing date on the docket, the Georgia Act, interpreted broadly, may give the physician immunity from prosecution when he or she relies in good faith on the minor's

Bass v. Singletary

170 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 1, 1999

These ailments do not, for the most part, qualify as “serious harm” for Eighth Amendment purposes. … Furthermore, deprivation of yard time imposes enough of a hardship to qualify as a constitutionally protected liberty interest.

Burger King Corp. v. Mason

710 F.2d 1480 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 1983

The jury did not request additional instructions or attempt to qualify its verdict in any manner. … From our review of the record, we cannot say that a finding of estoppel under these circumstances was clearly erroneous.

Burger King Corporation, a Florida Corporation v. Brian MacShara John Rudzewicz

724 F.2d 1505 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 13, 1984

In World-Wide Volkswagen, for example, the Court held a local car dealer immune from suit despite its participation in a nationwide servicing plan. … Appellant, who clearly does not resemble the average consumer, signed contracts that explicitly provided that Florida law would govern their interpretation.

United States v. City of Hialeah

140 F.3d 968 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 1998

One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. … Unlike Local No. 93 , the decree at issue in this case affects a wide range of contractual rights that existing collective bargaining agreements clearly guarantee incumbent employees.

National Ass'n for the Advancement of Colored People v. City of Evergreen

812 F.2d 1332 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

The district court’s rationale for reduction of the hours claimed in this case by 64.7 hours clearly lacks the requisite clarity. … Clearly, travel time would not vary with the number of claims on which the NAACP prevailed. B.

Mercer v. Davis & Berryman International, Inc.

834 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 21, 1987

Mercer’s selection of D & B could thus have constituted new and valuable consideration; it clearly qualified as an “act of the plaintiff from which the defendant derived a pecuniary benefit.” Files v. … This testimony alone was sufficient to establish Mercer’s reliance on the promise, and although it left the amount of damages in question, as we will discuss later, it also established that Davis’ promise caused Mercer to

United States v. Randall Clark Byrom, Heriberto Rene Perez

910 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 1990

Before admitting a coeonspirator’s statement over an objection that the statement does not qualify under Rule 801(d)(2)(E), a district court must be satisfied that the party offering the testimony has proved by a preponderance … The Court concluded that the government had established by a preponderance of the evidence that Lonardo was involved in a conspiracy with the petitioner, that the district court’s factfinding was not clearly erroneous, and

Irma Ovalles v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 4, 2018

But the facts of their prior crimes, when ascertainable, should not be immune from consideration when they commit new crimes. … We compounded that error when we started publishing those decisions, establishing them as precedent.

Richard Williams v. The City of Valdosta

689 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 1982

In a subsequent letter to Williams, the fire chief elaborated on his view that the positions had properly been filled by *967 qualified people on the basis of seniority. … The foregoing summary of the evidence on both sides, as well as the evidence discussed in parts I and IV of this opinion, clearly demonstrates that every issue in this case has been hotly disputed.

SkyHop Technologies, Inc. v. Praveen Narra

58 F.4th 1211 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2023

Indyzen has withheld the passwords to SkyHop’s AWS accounts and the associated servers, which clearly qualify as “computer[s].” See hiQ Labs, Inc. v. … SkyHop bears the burden of establishing the first two requirements. Id.

David Harrell v. Robert A. Butterworth

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 2001

Thus, we turn to the Florida Supreme Court’s decision to determine if it is contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. … We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

David Harrell v. Robert A. Butterworth

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 2001

Thus, we turn to the Florida Supreme Court's decision to determine if it is contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law, as determined by the United States Supreme Court. … We conclude that the Florida Supreme Court's decision was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court.

Kendyl Grace v. Adtran, Inc.

470 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 27, 2012

We first conclude that Grace failed to establish that she was qualified for her job. … Because Grace has failed to establish either that she was qualified for her job or that she suffered a differential application of work rules, she has failed to establish a prima facie case of pregnancy discrimination.

Melvin Gilmore v. Director, Us Dept. Of Labor

455 F. App'x 934 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2012

Moreover, “[c]onclusions of law and fact made by the Secretary or the [Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board] are also immune from judicial review.” Woodruff v. U.S. … As the OWCP’s decision was based on a factual inquiry, it is immune from judicial review. Woodruff, 954 F.2d at 637 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b)).

Industrial Risk Insurers v. M.A.N. Gutehoffnungshutte GmbH

141 F.3d 1434 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 1998

Having established the source of our jurisdiction, we move to address the appeal on the merits. … issue must clearly offer no meritorious new arguments.

Irma Ovalles v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 4, 2018

But the facts of their prior crimes, when ascertainable, should not be immune from consideration when they commit new crimes. … We compounded that error when we started publishing those decisions, establishing them as precedent.

United States v. Ryan K. Noble

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 26, 2021

The first qualifying in- stance—which Noble conceded was a qualified activity under the guidelines—was his conversation with “justnitnee.” … The second qualifying instance was the first conversation Noble had with “smokingkittens2011.”

United States v. William Howard Cross, Sr.

708 F.2d 631 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The exclusion from grand jury service of Negroes, or any group otherwise qualified to serve, impairs the confidence of the public in the administration of justice. … But the matter before us is clearly collateral to any judicial decision that forms part of a traditional judicial proceeding.