Case law

United States v. Daniel M. Paradies, the Paradies Shops, Inc., Paradies Midfield Corporation, Ira Jackson

98 F.3d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 6, 1996

Defendant Jackson has failed to establish that the district court was clearly erroneous in its determination that he testified untruthfully at trial. … In any event, Calabrese is clearly distinguishable on its facts.

Grant v. Comr. of IRS

103 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1996

To qualify as a "prevailing party," a taxpayer must establish that 1) the position of the government in the proceeding was not substantially justified, 2) the taxpayer has substantially … As the Tax Court observed, "petitioners failed to establish what information was actually provided to respondent on that date.

Willy Toussaint v. U.S. Attorney's Office

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 6, 2025

And a claim lacks an ar- guable basis in fact “if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a cate- gory encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and de- lusional.” Denton v. … The court identified numerous deficiencies with Toussaint’s form complaint, including that his attached letter cited no law, it was “entirely unclear” what damages Toussaint sought, he failed to establish

Grant v. Comr. of IRS

103 F.3d 948 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 31, 1996

To qualify as a "prevailing party," a taxpayer must establish that 1) the position of the government in the proceeding was not substantially justified, 2) the taxpayer has substantially prevailed … As the Tax Court observed, "petitioners failed to establish what information was actually provided to respondent on that date.

United States v. Zapata

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 28, 1998

The “other crimes” evidence is evaluated under a three-part test: (1) the evidence must be relevant to an issue other than the defendant’s character; (2) the act must be established by sufficient proof to permit a jury … However, we conclude that the district court clearly erred in “rounding-up” Ocampo’s drug- quantity conversion, and committed plain error when it “rounded-up” Zapata’s drug- quantity conversion.

Ford ex rel. Estate of Ford v. Garcia

289 F.3d 1283 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 30, 2002

We therefore hold that there was no plain error here because the district court’s instruction included an element which properly must be proved in command responsibility cases, and no case law exists clearly assigning the … See Fed.R.Evid. 702 ("If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill

High Point, LLLP v. National Park Service

850 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2017

Accepting for the present that siltation in Hawkins Creek qualifies as “deterioration by the elements,” High Point does not explain how relocating or extending the Dock is not a material alteration of its basic character … In particular, the Park Service’s establishing law and the Seashore Act make this fact abundantly clear.

Tampa Bay Water v. HDR Engineering, Inc.

731 F.3d 1171 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2013

As for whether HDR should have been estopped under federal law, the rule for applying either direct or collateral estoppel is well-established. 6 A party asking the court to apply estoppel must establish that “(1) the issue … If established, then “estoppel operates to bar the introduction or argumentation of certain facts necessarily established in a prior proceeding.” United States v.

60 Fair empl.prac.cas. (Bna) 822, 60 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 41,990, 37 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 980 Issiah Ross, Jr., Eddie Slaughter, William Morgan Porter, Johnnie Lee Palms, James C. Homer, John W. Taylor, Vernon Alexander Putman, Hosey J. White, Jr., Franklin Roosevelt Scott, Gerry Plant, Tabitha Herring, George Rumph, Nanette Tyson v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, William Morgan Porter v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Issiah Ross, Jr. v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Issiah Ross, Jr., Cross-Appellants v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Cross-Appellee. Issiah Ross, Jr., Johnnie Lee Palms, James C. Homer, John W. Taylor, Gerry Plant, Tabitha Herring, Cross-Appellants v. Buckeye Cellulose Corporation, Cross-Appellee

980 F.2d 648 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 4, 1993

Applying the continuing violation/continuing effects distinction, we must conclude that the 1984 freeze cannot qualify as an ongoing Title VII violation. … the extraordinary circumstances that justify equitable tolling was clearly erroneous. 48 Because appellants did not file charges of discrimination with the EEOC within the 180-day period and failed to establish grounds for

Delong Equipment Company v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co.

840 F.2d 843 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 23, 1988

Attendance at a single conspiratorial meeting in the district is enough to establish venue. In Vest v. … summons outside the state in the same manner as service is made within the state by any person authorized to make service by the laws of the state, territory, possession, or country in which service is made or by any duly qualified

Isamar Del-Carmen Sanchez-Chicas v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2019

on account of her refusal to pay the gang extortion money and her reporting that demand to the police, which she argued qualify as political opinions. … Department’s “El Salvador 2014 Crime and Safety Report” explains that gang extortion can “occur in the most affluent neighborhoods” and that “even closely guarded officials, independent business persons, and diplomats are not immune

Robert Wayne Holsey v. Warden, Georgia Diagonstic Prison

694 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 13, 2012

established federal law, and/or was in contravention of clearly established federal law; [and] (2) [Whether] the Georgia Supreme Court’s affirmance of Georgiá’s unique reasonable doubt standard for mental retardation claims … Under the unreasonable application clause of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), he must establish more because the question for a federal habeas court is “whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law was

Billy Compton Boldin v. Limestone County

152 F. App'x 841 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2005

“To overcome qualified immunity, the plaintiff must satisfy a two prong test; he must show that: (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) this right was clearly established at the time of the alleged … Thus, because Raby did not violate Boldin’s rights under the First Amendment, Raby is entitled to qualified immunity. C. Mt.

United States v. Russell Charles Dailey, A/K/A Don Agrillo

24 F.3d 1323 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 5, 1994

. § 1952 (a)(3), interstate travel with intent to carry on the unlawful activity of extortion, certainly qualifies as a “crime of violence” under section 4B1.2(1) because the threat of physical force is an element of the … We cannot say that the district court clearly erred in finding that the conduct of Dailey’s victim contributed significantly to provoking his offense. C.

United States v. Ivan Curbelo

726 F.3d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2013

Defendant has not pointed to anything that would qualify as good cause. … We held the error was not plain because of the absence of binding precedent “clearly articulating that the declarant of the statements testified to by the CBP officer is the language interpreter.” Id. at 24.

Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Air Capital Group, LLC

614 F. App'x 460 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2015

Not long ago, the Supreme Court held that statutory preconditions to suit are “jurisdictional” (and hence immune to waiver) only if “the Legislature clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count … But even if that was the jury’s reasoning, the rationale contravened clearly established law.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. George G. Levin

849 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2017

The law firm established a dedicated trust account for the Banyon Income Fund at the TD Bank (“TD Bank”). … In sum, the first part of the first sentence is necessary to qualify the second part of the sentence.

Robert Ellis Lowery v. Jerry Cummings

255 F. App'x 409 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 2007

A state court’s decision is “contrary to . . . clearly established federal law” if it either (1) “applie[s] a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by [the] Supreme Court,” or (2) contradicts the holding of … established federal law.

Porter v. Attorney General

593 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2008

The district court erred by concluding that clearly established federal law entitled Porter to counsel at a second competency hearing. … Cir. 1998), neither of which constitutes clearly established federal law. See Williams, 529 U.S. at 381, 120 S. Ct. at 1506–07; Dombrowski, 543 F.3d at 1274.

United States v. Mario Martinez-Gonzalez

286 F. App'x 672 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 16, 2008

To the contrary, the plain meaning of §1326(b) merely establishes the maximum sentence. … The congressional establishment of maximum sentence is a far different enterprise than the congressionally mandated function of the Sentencing Commission – i.e. to establish objective guidelines to assist district judges