Case law

Lafayette Brown, Jr. v. Georgia Department of Revenue, Harry White

881 F.2d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1989

immunity. … Indeed, the plaintiffs uncontradicted testimony established that John Smith led him to believe he had no appeal rights.

The Sierra Club v. Stephen L. Johnson

436 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 20, 2006

Id. at 1210. 19 that description, assuming that reduced aesthetic and recreational values stemming from concern about pollution qualifies. It does. … All instances of deviations from permit requirements must be clearly identified in such reports.

Johnny Lee Litman v. Secretary, Of the Navy

703 F. App'x 766 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2017

In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment on the basis of race under Title VII, a plaintiff must show he (1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position; (3) suffered an adverse … Additionally, the district court did not clearly err by concluding Litman failed to demonstrate he warranted equitable tolling.

Jacob Farmer v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia

589 F. App'x 913 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2014

They also alleged a violation of their right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. … Woods could qualify for in-state tuition because he had a Georgia driver’s license, and concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to show that Mr.

United States v. Joseph Furey Lusk

119 F.4th 815 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2024

Clearly, the offense prohibits offenses perpe- trated at minors and categorically, he was traveling to meet a minor. … The Florida conviction cannot, therefore, qualify as a predicate offense.

United States v. Jack Bruce Folk

754 F.3d 905 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2014

A firearm that reasonably appears to be in the possession of a convicted felon qualifies as contraband––and is therefore subject to seizure under the plain view doctrine. 11 See United States v. Williams, 289 F. … Clearly, Folk had “neither a subjective, or objectively reasonable, expectation of privacy with regard to his calls from the jailhouse.” See United States v. Garrett, 388 Fed.

United States v. Damon Amedeo

370 F.3d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 28, 2004

establish that a defendant has accepted personal responsibility." … The district court clearly erred, however, in concluding that the offense of conviction was committed to facilitate the sexual assault.

Elliott Gelber v. AKAL Security, Inc.

14 F.4th 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 2021

And as we have explained, our caselaw had not clearly settled either the allocation of burdens or the standard for judging the compensability of meal breaks. … But he failed to demonstrate that these limitations qualified as “real limitations”—that is, that these limitations inured to Akal’s benefit.

Samuel Valerio-Estrada v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2026

Based on these facts, he as- serted that the IJ had clearly erred in concluding his parents would not suffer extreme hardship if he was removed. … that the IJ had not clearly erred in assessing the hardship his five children and two par- ents would face upon his removal.

R. Stuart Huff, as Trustee v. Standard Life Insurance Company, a Mississippi Corporation

683 F.2d 1363 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 26, 1982

Relying on Florida case law, which denies the existence of “interim” insurance, the defendant contends that no insurance could have taken effect until the *1368 insurer determined whether the applicant qualified as a risk … “Clearly, the goal of the judicial disqualification statute is to foster the appearance of impartiality.” Id. at 1111 .

Edna R. Dutton v. United States

621 F. App'x 962 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

The FTCA “waive[s] the sovereign immunity of the United States for certain torts committed by federal employees.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 475, 114 S. Ct. 996, 1000 (1994) (citing § 1346(b)). … the ‘same profession’ as the defendant whose conduct is at issue or qualify for the exception to the ‘same profession’ requirement.” 4 Hankla v.

Jane Doe No. 1 v. Fulton-Dekalb Hospital Authority

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2010

Please run an ad in the newspaper ASAP.” 4 the resumes of qualified candidates it received to Upshaw, who, together with one of the clinic’s substance abuse counselors, … assault committed by an emergency room nurse, despite reports from other nurses about potentially “inappropriate” tendencies around female patients). 28  Upshaw and Clark clearly

Johnson v. Florida Department of Corrections

513 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2008

Consequently, Johnson has not shown the requisite diligence to establish equitable tolling. … Fiore does not apply here either, because Delgado, on its face, clearly announced a change in the burglary law rather than a mere clarification.

Cunningham v. Fleetwood Homes of Georgia, Inc.

253 F.3d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2001

The disclosure requirements established by the FTC pursuant to Magnuson-Moss are codified at 16 C.F.R. § 701.3, and obligate warrantors to "clearly and conspicuously disclose [warranty terms] in a single document in simple … This last requirement is echoed in § 703.2, which requires the warrantor to disclose "clearly and conspicuously at least the following information on the face of the written warranty: ...

Robert C. Touchston v. Michael McDermott

234 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 2000

This scheme clearly contravenes the long-settled principle that “[qualified citizens not only have a constitutionally protected right to vote, but also the right to have their votes counted.” Duncan v. … Clearly, then, a Bush voter could not maintain a contest suit — he could neither allege nor establish that the inclusion of other legal votes, or the exclusion of illegal votes, would change the outcome of the election. 57

United States v. Prosperi

201 F.3d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2000

Morgan CDs bore a sufficient resemblance to genuine CDs in order to qualify as "counterfeited" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 513. … The jury was instructed that they only had the two charges, that is, the tax charges and the counterfeit security charges, so I think they understand that clearly.

Eloy Rojas Mamani v. Gonzalo Daniel Sanchez De Lozada Sanchez Bustamante

968 F.3d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 2020

Defendants also appealed the District Court’s conclusions that the political-question doctrine did not bar suit and that Defendants lacked sovereign immunity. Id. 1151 & n.3. … To qualify as customary international law, the practice must “reflect wide acceptance among the states particularly involved in the relevant activity” and “there must be a sense of legal obligation.” Id.

United States v. Diosme Fernandez Hano

922 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2019

And the government argues that Arrastia-Cardoso’s proposed rule is not clearly established as the law of this Circuit. United States v. … Hesser, 800 F.3d 1310, 1325 (11th Cir. 2015) (“‘Plain’ error means that the legal rule is clearly established at the time the case is reviewed on direct appeal.”).

Askew v. City of Rome, GA Comm.

127 F.3d 1355 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1997

See id. at 58-59, 106 S.Ct. at 2770-71 ("The District Court's findings concerning black support for black candidates in the five multi-member districts at issue here clearly establish the political cohesiveness of black … [the] availability of qualified candidates, were driving the election results.").

William T. Thigpen, Jr. v. Larry Justice

216 F.3d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2000

Of the three clauses included in the second sentence of the Amendment’s first section—the privileges and immunities clause, the due process clause, and the equal protection clause—only the due process clause alludes to … As we previously have recognized, the Reeves Decree “establishe[d] certain mandatory racial quotas for hiring and promotion within the Bibb County Sheriff’s Department.” See Reeves, 754 F.2d at 967.