Case law

Robert Rimmer v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

864 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 25, 2017

Whether clearly established federal law countenances the state court’s approach is of no moment. … Where the state court’s decision is not inconsistent with any clearly established federal law, we must defer to it under AEDPA.

United States v. Jesus Alexander Guerrero-Rosario

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

It found that the government’s evi- dence at the hearing established that the boat qualified as a stateless vessel under the MDLEA. … Based on the record evidence, the government established that Vasquez and Guerrero-Rosario’s boat qualified as a “vessel without nationality” under § 70502(d)(1)(B).

United States v. Richard Colby Parr and Vincent Rendaro

716 F.2d 796 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 19, 1983

Based on this evidence, the jury concluded that the note qualified as a “similitude” of an obligation of the United States. … Preliminarily, and contrary to the government’s argument, the salvage procedure here in issue clearly qualifies as a search within the Fourth Amendment.

Rubens Aspilaire v. U.S. Attorney General

992 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2021

It continued, “This literal requirement of the statute exhalts form over substance to the detriment of public policy, and such a result is clearly absurd.” Id. at 1054. … Aspilaire says this difference means that “Florida punishes [the possession of] an otherwise- qualifying antique firearm . . . even in offenses as simple as ‘felon in possession.’”

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Carolyn Smith, Intervenor v. Reichhold Chemicals, Inc.

988 F.2d 1564 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 26, 1993

Smith did not possess the requisite degrees for the job; however, she testified that she believed that she was qualified for the position. … The district court noted that the complaint was ambiguous because plaintiff never clearly states an Equal Pay Act claim, yet the statute is referenced throughout the complaint.

North Alabama Express, Inc. v. The Interstate Commerce Commission

971 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 1993

Based on these titles, the objectors contend § 10926 is clearly the "more-applicable" statute. … Because the text of the statute is clearly not limited to mergers and consolidations, the section title cannot be invoked to so limit the statute's scope.

Larry Clark, Sr. v. LC Halsten LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2026

under the laws”); see also supra at 9–11 (concluding that the allegations fail to establish a viable claim under § 1983). … A preliminary in- junction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy,” so “its grant is the exception rather than the rule, and [a] plaintiff must clearly carry the burden of persuasion.”

Branca v. Security Benefit Life Insurance

773 F.2d 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 1985

If we assume that the Argentine decree qualifies as prima facie evidence under section 731.103(2), we must determine if the Brancas’ action for insurance benefits is one of the “proceedings under this code.” … As such, the trial judge’s finding that the Brancas did not carry their burden of proof is not clearly erroneous. Also, the Brancas raise no circumstances justifying a new trial under Rule 60(b).

Paul George Bettencourt v. Brians Owens

542 F. App'x 730 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 2013

It is a well-established rule in the Eleventh Circuit that where a more carefully drafted pro se complaint might state a claim the “plaintiff must be given at least one chance to amend the complaint before the district … AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. 9 The defendant prison officials argue on appeal that they are entitled to qualified immunity, but it would be premature to address qualified immunity prior to Mr.

Estate of Flanigan v. Commissioner

743 F.2d 1526 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 1984

The will made specific bequests of certain property, which are not relevant here, and, from a portion of the residue of the estate, established a marital deduction trust for Mr. Flanigan’s benefit. … disclaimer with the same full force and effect as though he had filed such qualified disclaimer.

Mary Thomas v. Early County, Ga

360 F. App'x 71 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2010

But, the court excused any error because the Eleventh Circuit en banc opinion that partially established the immunity had been issued less than nine months before Plaintiffs filed their original complaint. … A district court would necessarily abuse its discretion if it based its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence.’” McGregor v.

Marvin K. Speigner, Jr. v. Willie A. Alexander

248 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2001

Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir.2000) (en banc). 2 As discussed in section IIA of this opinion, Speigner's claims for monetary damages were clearly nonjusticiable under United States v. … Later cases in several of the circuits extended the application of the Feres "incident to service" test to cases brought under § 1983, an interpretation that grants state actors the same degree of immunity from civil suits

Sciarrino v. City of Key West, FL

83 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1996

Lauderdale, 766 F.2d 1528, 1530 (11th Cir.1985) ("The objectives served by the ordinance, traffic regulation and aesthetic improvement, undoubtedly qualify as substantial governmental … (clearly erroneous standard does not apply to determinations of whether regulation directly advances government interest in First Amendment cases). goals.

Brian Rock v. Ray Anthony International

380 F. App'x 875 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 26, 2010

PER CURIAM: In this appeal, we consider whether a salaried dispatcher for a crane rental company qualifies under the administrative exemption to the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 213(a)(1). … Rock’s other responsibilities combined were necessary and of the type that every crane rental business must undertake in order to operate” and concluding that “[Sunbelt] has clearly established that [Rock’s] primary duties

Lea Cordoba v. Dillard's Inc.

419 F.3d 1169 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2005

Thus, it was clear to the district court that Cordoba had fallen far short of establishing a prima facie case. … The ADA prohibits discrimination “against a qualified individual with a disability because of the disability of such individual.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a) (emphasis added).

United States v. Randolph William Robinson

239 F. App'x 507 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2007

The record also reflects that Robinson was, in fact, offering these statements for the truth of the matter asserted—that is, he was ultimately hoping to establish that his coconspirator had a plan for the robbery, and that … The district court also did not abuse its discretion in finding that the testimony did not qualify for a hearsay exception under Rule 804(b)(3).

Mattie Lee Bryant v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

686 F.2d 1373 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 1982

Likewise, section 40.01(1) of the Florida Statutes requires that all state jurors be fully qualified electors. We have previously upheld its constitutionality. 4 Reed v. Wainwright, 587 F.2d 260 (5th Cir. 1979). … Breland, 522 F.Supp. 468, 479 (N.D.Ga.1981) (a "47.1% absolute disparity between the percentage of female foreperson (sic) and females in the district's jury-eligible population is ... clearly sufficient to establish a prima

Garcia v. Copenhaver, Bell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 1997

In order to determine if a defendant qualifies as an "employer" and, consequently, whether ADEA will even apply, we must turn to ADEA's definitions' section. … immaterial, made solely for the purpose of establishing jurisdiction, nor is it insubstantial or frivolous.

United States v. Trujillo

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 14, 1998

This two-level adjustment made Fuentes ineligible to qualify for the Safety Valve Provision under section 5C1.2 or the downward departure in section 2D1.1. … We hold that the district court’s finding was not clearly erroneous. See, e.g., United States v. Hansley, 54 F.3d 709, 716 (11th Cir.)

United States v. Chastain

198 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 1999

He was clearly qualified as an expert. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 permits expert testimony to be admitted when it is helpful to the finder of fact in determining a fact in issue. … This information was clearly relevant to establishing the existence of a conspiracy to smuggle marijuana by using an airplane.