Case law

Gregory Brian Myers v. Naples Golf And Beach Club, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2025

Rule 38 sanctions may be “appropri- ately imposed against appellants who raise ‘clearly frivolous claims in the face of established law and clear facts.’” Parker v. Am. … Sports & Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d 1092, 1096 (11th Cir. 1997) (“Cases remanded for lack of jurisdic- tion are immune from review even if the district court’s decision is clearly erroneous.”

United States v. Alvin Smith

459 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2006

Detective Dickie testified that some of the females in the photos were clearly minors with one likely as young as eleven. … Smith, therefore, cannot establish error on this ground.

Inversiones Y Procesadora Tropical Inprotsa, S.A. v. Del Monte International GMBH

921 F.3d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2019

The relevant inquiry, then, is whether Industrial Risk has been clearly overruled by the Supreme Court. It has not. … But the authorities on which INPROTSA relied to establish its contention that Florida law would not permit the award are not clearly on point—that is, they do not deal with a disgorgement award based on revenues where

Chester McCoy v. United States

266 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 2001

In order to qualify under Teague’s second exception, the new rule “ ‘must not only improve accuracy [of trial], but also alter our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding … Bousley, 523 U.S. at 623 , 118 S.Ct. 1604 (“As we clearly stated in Engle v.

Saul Lopez Martinez v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2024

And it concluded that the IJ’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous, noting that the IJ had “considered and dis- cussed the relevant factors . . . based on controlling legal author- ity,” again … The BIA explained that an applicant basing a claim on the health of a qualifying relative “needs to establish that the relative has a serious medical condition and, if he or she is accompanying the

United States v. Samuel Storey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 8, 2025

Storey’s cocaine offenses clearly occurred on different occa- sions. … See Laines, 69 F.4th at 1234 (rejecting the argument that Chamu established “that the govern- ment ha[d] not yet met its burden to show” that the prior Florida conviction “qualifie[d] as a predicate

Reinaldo Ramon Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc.

711 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

However, [w]e are bound by the holdings of earlier panels unless and until they are clearly overruled by this court en banc or by the Supreme Court. … For the reasons that follow, Hoffman is not clearly on point and therefore did not overrule Quality Inn.

Georgia Kraft Company, Woodkraft Division v. National Labor Relations Board

696 F.2d 931 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1983

On November 15, all bargaining employees walked off their jobs and established a picket line outside the plant. … The evidence before the ALJ in this case indicates that although the Greenville strike was not immune from violence, the acts were directed only at company property.

United States v. Roberto Segura-Baltazar

448 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2006

Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 922 (1984) (establishing the good faith exception to the exclusionary rule). … If that mixture qualifies as a “mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine” as that phrase is used in 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A)(viii), then Segura-Baltazar was subject to a 10-year statutory

Int'l Brotherhood v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 1997

The group ultimately decided that either Jonjock had intentionally committed these errors or that he was so lacking in skills he could not qualify as a boilermaker fitter/rigger. … We note, however, that although our review is limited, that does not mean that "the Board is immune from judicial examination and reversal in proper cases....

The Miami Herald Publishing Co., Cross v. City of Hallandale, Cross-Appellees

734 F.2d 666 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 18, 1984

With one exception, the contested provisions concern themselves exclusively with establishing a system whereby the owners of vending machines are to pay a set fee as a precondition to engaging in business within the city … Clearly, government has no power to restrict such activity because of its message.

Robert E. Gibson, and Ed Havill, Intervening v. George Firestone

741 F.2d 1268 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 1984

The Secretary of State and other election officials, reading the statute to include party primary elections, advertised the availability of such ballots for use in the local primary and issued those ballots to qualified applicants … Clearly, appellants can claim no constitutionally-protected right to place issues before the Florida electorate; any opportunity to do so must be subject to compliance with state constitutional requirements. 8 More fundamentally

Jones v. GDCP Warden

753 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2014

We conclude that the Georgia Supreme *1173 Court’s rejection of Jones’s ineffective-assistance claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See Strickland v. … Indeed, “[a] circuit court may ... look to circuit precedent to ascertain whether it has already held that the particular point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent.

United States v. Watchmaker

761 F.2d 1459 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 1985

Courts have also rejected the argument that acts which are part of the same scheme or transaction cannot qualify as distinct predicate acts. See United States v. … The reasoning applied in Bagaric is clearly applicable to the instant case as well. X.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. North American Clearing, Inc.

656 F. App'x 969 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2016

We have held that “court-appointed receivers . . . enjoy judicial immunity for acts within the scope of their authority . . . … An erroneous order can be valid” for purposes of immunity. Id. at 556 (citation omitted).

Steven Richard Taylor v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

64 F.4th 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 11, 2023

In particular, we must honor a state court’s merits-based denial of a habeas claim unless its decision was “(1) . . . contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal … Pollock was a qualified expert. Taylor asserts that although the trial judge accepted Dr.

United States v. David S. Taylor

88 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1996

We conclude that the facts of this case do establish a direct connection between Taylor’s pre-threat conduct and his threat. … The government does not dispute the Alpert requirements, but instead argues that in this ease the record clearly provides the basis for the obstruction of justice enhancement. We agree.

Fireman's Fund Insurance v. Tropical Shipping & Construction Co.

254 F.3d 987 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2001

In reaching its decision, the district court found that the bill of lading legibly and clearly described the stage as "one unit" or "package" for purposes of COGSA. … Paragraph two of the bill of lading is entitled "Clause Paramount," and provides that the bill of lading is subject to the provisions of COGSA and that the carrier is entitled "to any privilege and right and immunity provided

Jude Lahens v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 12, 2025

“[T]o be ‘contrary to’ clearly established federal law, the state court must either (1) apply a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law, or (2) reach a different … Accordingly, based on Cairns’s testimony, we conclude that the state court’s decision that Cairns’s performance was not deficient was neither an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

Monica Stone v. Robert Hendry

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 10, 2019

Defendants invoke qualified immunity. … To overcome that immunity, Stone must show that (1) taken in the light most favorable to Stone, the facts show that the defendants’ conduct violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at