Case law

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.

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.”

BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. v. Town of Palm Beach

252 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 25, 2001

But if the statute or ordinance in question does not meet these criteria, the state or local government has not "violated" the subsections; rather, the particular regulation is not immune from preemption as an exception to … Fortunately, the legislative history pertaining to subsection (d) clearly indicates Congress's intentions when it drafted subsection (d). The Act began as Senate Bill 652 in the 104th Congress.

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.

Combs v. Plantation Patterns

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 1997

In order to establish pretext, the plaintiff is not required to introduce evidence beyond that already offered to establish the prima facie case. .... … Thus Hairston, our first decision on this issue following Hicks, clearly held that one way a plaintiff may succeed in establishing discrimination is by showing that the employer's proffered explanations are not credible

United States v. Roger Bergman

852 F.3d 1046 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 24, 2017

The physician must also be involved in establishing the treatment plan and actively treating the patient. … Indeed, ample evidence established the conspiracy’s existence and Bergman’s extensive participation.

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.

United States v. Gary Kafka

312 F. App'x 215 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 13, 2009

Pastore also appeals her 30-month sentence, arguing the district court clearly erred in failing to provide her with a minor-role reduction. … The record establishes Appellants misled Kafka’s probation officer, lied to lenders to use credit lines, and submitted falsified mortgage applications on behalf of themselves and third parties.

Campbell v. United States

962 F.2d 1579 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 1992

Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 , 109 S.Ct. 3040 , 106 L.Ed.2d 410 (1989), the Court clearly abandoned strict scrutiny analysis in upholding the constitutionality of a Missouri viability testing provision. … Justice Scalia's concurring opinion explicitly called for overruling Roe and the constitutional framework it established. Id. at 532 , 109 S.Ct. at 3064 .

United States v. Francisco E. Garcia, Jr.

590 F. App'x 915 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2014

To 5  Case: 12-16572 Date Filed: 11/04/2014 Page: 6 of 11 justify a firearms enhancement, the government must establish by a preponderance of the evidence … In order words, to negate the government’s initial showing of possession to avoid the enhancement, a defendant must show that it is clearly improbable the gun was connected to the offense, but to qualify for the safety

Marlene Jaggernauth v. U.S. Attorney General

432 F.3d 1346 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2005

If Jaggernauth was convicted under subpart (a), her taking of property would have involved an intent to “deprive the owner of the rights and benefits of ownership,” and would therefore qualify as a “theft” as defined by … Because it has not been clearly established that Jaggernauth’s 2001 conviction for grand theft is an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(G), we conclude that the BIA erred in upholding Jaggernauth’s removal

Bernard Schoninger Shopping Centers, Ltd. v. J.P.S. Elastomerics, Corp.

102 F.3d 1173 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 6, 1997

The installation of over 100,000 square feet of membrane and fiberboard at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars is a "valuable addition" to the Kmart building, and it therefore qualifies as an "improvement." … Even if we could glean some semantic distinction from the two provisions, both statutes provide However, Schoninger's brief implies, but does not assert, that the evidence established another, distinct

Robert Franklyn Lodge v. U.S. Attorney General

91 F.4th 1107 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 26, 2024

That is, Lodge argues that the sex classification in the second clause “clearly injure[s]” “his father” and that he has third-party standing “to assert his [father’s] constitutional claims.” … Nor do we decide whether Lodge qualified as a “child” under section 1432(a)(3).

United States v. Ronald Francis Croteau

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2016

and urged Croteau to seek advice from a competent tax professional or qualified attorney. … In August 2008, Croteau signed and recorded a “Notice of Lien, Diplomatic Immunity and Identity Bond on Land” and a “Private Discharging and Indemnity Bond” for $300 million.

United States v. Jessie Jerome Perkins, Jr., Johnny Lewis Scott

348 F.3d 965 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 22, 2003

We assess the district court’s findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and review the application of the law to the facts de novo. Id. … Traffic stops qualify as seizures under the Fourth Amendment. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 , 99 S.Ct. 1391 , 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979).

Sheree Woodard v. Fanboy, L.L.C.

298 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2002

honestly believed that Plaintiff’s apartment was filthy.7 Sufficient evidence supported a jury’s finding that 6 When, in the employment context, an employer asserts that a hired or promoted employee was better qualified … Investment Advisers, Inc., 85 F.3d 1328, 1333-37 (8th Cir. 1996) (concluding that defendant was due summary judgment because evidence that established that proffered reasons were pretextual also clearly evidenced that

United States v. Ruben Magdaniel-Mora, Henny Dekom, Ibrahim Nunez, Francisco Vicente-Leon and Felix Calvo-Castillo

746 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1984

A series of black and green dots that Garner, who qualified as an expert on navigational markings, identified as a route or track line appeared on the chart. … In consequence, they must establish before this court that its introduction amounted to plain error. United States v.

Rockwater, Inc. v. United States

121 F.4th 1287 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2024

They do not establish a primary purpose of transporting peanuts. … Because the peanut wagon clearly didn’t meet the first require- ment, the company was not exempt from the excise tax.

Kyle Ray Hurst v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 2019

With respect to certain tort claims, the FTCA waives this “traditional all-encompassing immunity” under particular circumstances. Douglas v. … But Hurst has not pointed to—and we are unaware of—any Florida authority indicating that, when an area of property is used for more than one purpose, at least one of which clearly qualifies as an “outdoor recreational

United States v. Jason M. Moriarty

429 F.3d 1012 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2005

Moriarty further admitted to downloading child pornography, and his counsel made no objection to, or attempt to qualify, the Government’s factual proffer. … Thus, we will not set aside a 19 district court’s determination that a defendant is not entitled to a § 3E1.1 adjustment unless the facts in the record clearly establish that the