Case law

Gregg v. U.S. Industries, Inc.

887 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 1989

Our review of the district court's `denial of a new trial involves determining whether the trial judge clearly abused his discretion. Pate, 819 F.2d at 1077 . … His position as founder, owner and manager of his companies from their inception made him uniquely qualified to render an opinion as to the value of his businesses.

United States v. Yina Castaneda Benavidez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 13, 2025

The district court did not err in determining Castaneda Benavidez did not qualify for a sentencing reduction under 2 In Bonner v. … The court ad- dressed that she had not established extraordinary and compelling reasons to justify compassionate release, acknowledging that, had she intended to move for relief under § 3582(c)(1)(A),

Dennis Scott v. City of Daytona Beach, Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2026

Because depending on exactly where Scott panhandles, (c)(3)(a) may or may not objectively chill his speech, he hasn’t clearly established his standing to challenge the provision. … So the plaintiffs haven’t clearly established standing to challenge (c)(4)(c). Subparagraphs (c)(4)(d) through (h) prohibit panhandling that involves certain behavior.

Yanet Duharte v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Thus, in this case, we must determine whether the state court’s conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to counsel at her resentencing was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal … Under clearly established federal law, Duharte was thus entitled to counsel at her resentencing. Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 212, 128 S. Ct. at 2591; see Gardner, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S. Ct. at 1205.

United States v. Laetividal-GonzaLez

939 F.2d 1455 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 1991

. §§ 846 and 963 were amended to clearly require the same mandatory minimum penalties without parole for both conspirators and substantive offenders. … Clearly, then Rosales-Martinez had the required opportunity to rebut or cast doubt on any evidence gathered from the trial of his co-defendants.

United States v. James Harding

104 F.4th 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 2024

But that evidence does not establish that Harding was Ol’ School. … The district court admitted evidence from the September 2021 search of Harding’s home on the alternative ground that it qualified as extrinsic evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b).

Firoz Ali Merchant v. U.S. Atty. General

461 F.3d 1375 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2006

It stated that Merchant’s “speculative future eligibility for adjustment of status failed to establish good cause for a continuance of his removal proceedings.” … We reject the government’s argument, because the statute clearly provides that an alien in Merchant’s shoes need only be “eligible” to receive the visa, not that he must have the visa in hand. See also 8 C.F.R.

United States v. George Tom Darby, Constantine Yamanis, Vincent Calise, and Michael Yamanis

744 F.2d 1508 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 7, 1984

Although his ruling is subject to appellate review, it is sustainable unless clearly erroneous.” Matthews v. … While ordinary sentencing proceedings are by no means immune from all due process attacks, the Supreme Court has required only minimal due process protections in such proceedings. See United, States v.

United States v. Robert Allen Johnson, Roy Maxwell Lister and Ira Hill, Jr., Defendants

730 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 1984

Moreover, the acts were aimed at the accomplishment of the conspiracy’s goal, obtaining federal loan guarantees, and thus were clearly foreseeable. … The probity of the mortgage scheme was further enhanced once defense counsel attempted to establish on cross-examination that Lister never actively participated in L & H.

Nina Adelina Fidalgo/velez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

697 F.2d 1026 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 11, 1983

went to Canada in 1975 to unlawfully obtain an immediate relative visa from the United States Consulate in Toronto and that she had failed even to allege that she would suffer the requisite extreme hardship. 3 In order to qualify … As the Fourth Circuit observed in McCoIvin, “[t]he criteria laid down in Kamheangpatiyooth clearly gave rise to a broader interpretation of ‘continuous’ than the Fleuti court gave to ‘intended.’ ” 648 F.2d at 938 .

Vazquez v. Metropolitan Dade County

968 F.2d 1101 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 13, 1992

immunity; and (3) that there did not exist a custom or policy on the part of Dade County that would render it liable for the actions of its officials. … The factual determinations underlying the court's legal conclusion--such as the determination that an issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding--are to be upheld on appeal unless clearly erroneous.

Smith v. United States (In re Holywell Corp.)

911 F.2d 1539 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 1990

Since the IRS never filed a proof of claim for taxes and the debtors never scheduled such taxes as a liability, such a claim cannot qualify as an administration claim. … A similar conclusion is clearly appropriate in this case. Post-confirmation taxes are not recoverable as administrative expenses under 11 U.S.C. § 503 . In United States v.

Robert Daniel Taylor v. Leanne Polhill

964 F.3d 975 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2020

Taylor’s challenge to the Licensing Statute is really premised on a more indirect attack, asserting that the Pre-Sale Testing Statute is preempted and those pre-sale testing requirements are embedded into the qualifying … However, the Texas law clearly ties licensing to the “fitting and dispensing of hearing instruments.” Id. at 584 (citing Tex. Occ. Code § 402.451); see also Tex. Occ.

United States v. Mark Tomlinson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 5, 2023

The court de- nied both motions, concluding that the additional medical records did not establish a qualifying medical reason and that the sentenc- ing factors still weighed against early release. … A district court acts within its discretion so long as it does not apply an incor- rect legal standard, rely on clearly erroneous facts, or commit a clear error of judgment.

Adrean Lans v. Melissa Stuckey

203 F. App'x 956 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2006

Qualified immunity protects police officers performing discretionary functions from liability under section 1983 as long as their conduct does not violate a clearly established constitutional right. See Rich v. … the officer violated a constitutional right and (2) establish that the violated right was clearly established, Kingsland v.

Peek-A-Boo Lounge of Bradenton, Inc. v. Manatee County

337 F.3d 1251 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2003

(h) All other rooms in adult dance establishment premises must either: (1) be not less than one thousand square feet in area; or (2) be clearly marked in letters not less than two inches … XXI, § 2. 5 Doran does not clearly state whether the town ordinance was a zoning ordinance or a nudity ordinance.

Angel Flight of Georgia, Inc. v. Angel Flight America, Inc.

522 F.3d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2008

Purposely failing to disclose other users’ rights to use the same or similar marks may qualify as a material omission justifying cancellation of a trademark. See L.D. Kichler Co. v. … Finally, the district court did not clearly err by cancelling United States Trademark No. 1,491,541 on the ground the registration had been obtained through fraud.

David Williamson v. Brevard County

928 F.3d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2019

To that end, the Supreme Court has long “adhered to the principle, clearly manifested in the history and logic of the Establishment Clause, that no State can ‘pass laws which aid one religion’ or that ‘prefer one religion … denied the opportunity on account of being an atheist or because he was going to deliver a nonreligious prayer, “the House permissibly limits the opening prayer to religious prayer” and the atheist’s prayer would not have qualified

Richard Jordan v. Georgia Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 19, 2018

The Federal Magistrate’s Act lists several examples of motions that qualify as dispositive matters, including motions for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment … See Jones, 811 F.3d at 1292–93 (reaffirming this Court’s precedent establishing that a condemned inmate has no right to require disclosure of information protected by the Lethal Injection Secrecy Act).

Ana Miriam Guevara-Acosta v. U.S. Atty. Gen.

372 F. App'x 52 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 5, 2010

To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, the petitioner must establish that she is unable or unwilling to return to her home country because of “persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race … In Castillo-Arias, we held that the BIA’s legal definition of what constitutes a particular social group was reasonable and “neither arbitrary, capricious, nor clearly contrary to law.” Id. at 1196.