Case law

United States Steel Corp. v. Astrue

495 F.3d 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 15, 2007

Appellants argue that the latter two sentences of the letter establish that they had requested the records at issue. … Victor Hribar Appellants also claim that Hribar did not work for Appellants or a related company in a position that would qualify for NBCWA benefits.

Renardo Lewis v. City of Marietta

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 28, 2023

The district court thus considered whether the Appel- lants presented sufficient facts to allege a violation of a constitu- tional right, and, if so, whether that right was clearly established. … Bajjani, 647 S.E.2d 54, 60 (2007) (explaining actual malice for purposes of official immunity).

Bankwest, Inc. v. Thurbert E. Baker

411 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2005

Bancorp, Inc., 222 F.3d 1315 , 1321-22 (11th Cir.2000) (holding that immunity under 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (g)(3) for “any person under any law or regulation of the United States or any constitution, law, or regulation of any State … In this instance, the rewrite would change the established, all-encompassing meaning of “any” as it is used in § 27(a).

United States v. Esnel Isnadin

742 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2014

The court explicitly found that it would not hold as a general rule that once entrapment occurred, a defendant’s subsequent acts are immunized from culpability. … According to Gustama, the jury’s question during deliberations “clearly” meant the jurors “had unanimously found entrapment” and that their not guilty verdict as to four of the six counts is proof of that finding.

Sloss Industries Corporation v. Eurisol

488 F.3d 922 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2007

Understanding that a minimum contacts analysis is “immune to solution by checklist,” Product Promotions, Inc. v. … The First Circuit explained that, “[o]n this background,” United’s participation “seems clearly to rise above that of a purchaser who simply places an order and sits by until the goods are delivered.”

Asbestos Settlement Trust v. City of New York

487 F.3d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2007

True enough, but to interpret this qualifier as an implied grant of authority to independently review and overrule the Administrator’s decisions goes too far. … Here, the Plan Documents repeatedly manifest the drafters’ ability to clearly and precisely delegate and limit authority over the resolution of asbestos claims.

United States v. Ronald Glinton, Morris McFadden Timothy Hatten, Lavon Heath, Albert Davis

154 F.3d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 14, 1998

It is clearly not sufficient simply to say that the defendants each shared a common goal, to-wit: profit from the sale of cocaine. … We find Martinez’s affidavit established sufficient probable cause independent of the information disclosed in the warrantless search.

United States v. Jorge Humberto Diaz-Lizaraza

981 F.2d 1216 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 1993

After Agent Jordan recognized Diaz’s voice as that of “George,” the agents clearly would not have let Diaz leave their custody. … The admissibility of evidence of Diaz’s 1988 arrest is controlled by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). 4 First established by United States v.

Dewey Brown, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Charlie Brown v. United States

838 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 1, 1988

The FTCA establishes that as a prerequisite to maintaining a suit against the United States, a plaintiff must present notice of the claim to the appropriate federal agency. … Although a Florida wrongful death action is clearly distinct from a personal injury action, liability of a defendant in a wrongful death action is based on the negligent or wrongful act which injures the decedent.

Winnie Bailey v. Huntsville, City of

517 F. App'x 857 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 2013

However, mere temporal proximity, without more, must be “very close” to establish causation. Id. (quotation omitted). … Based on Reyes’s testimony, we conclude that the City carried its burden of production under Burdine, as it clearly set forth the reasons for why it did not select Bailey and was not required to persuade the court that

United States v. Maurice Jefferson

478 F. App'x 589 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 25, 2012

Further, though Jefferson advances arguments as to why Sykes abrogates Nix, Sykes is not clearly on point and does not directly overrule or abrogate Nix. See Sykes, 131 S. … However, Jefferson does not offer any controlling case in this Court or the Supreme Court which establishes that the residual clause of § 4B1.2(a)(2) is void for vagueness.

United States v. George Brown, Jeff Anderson, United States of America v. Willie Bradshaw, A/K/A Brad, Hamin Abdul Muhammad, A/K/A Anthony Keith Edwards, George Brown, Jeff Anderson

872 F.2d 385 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 1989

Did the trial court err in qualifying and admitting the testimony of a government expert witness as to drug code words and jargon? 13 5. … established in United States v.

Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 99,428

710 F.2d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 1983

Of course, each of the class members must have received at least one prospectus in order to qualify as a member of the class. … Neither can we find the record so lacking in supporting evidence as to make his conclusions clearly erroneous. See North River Energy Corp. v.

Forrest Andrew Jordan v. Ray Lippman, Warden, and Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General for the State of Georgia

763 F.2d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 21, 1985

Forty-two jurors were thus “qualified” to serve on the jury. … If Jordan had a right to such additional voir dire, he clearly did not waive it.

United States v. Timothy Jermaine Pate

84 F.4th 1196 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 11, 2023

But as a fed- eral court, we cannot read the text broadly to impose criminal lia- bility on Pate when Congress has not clearly criminalized his con- duct. … Feola’s reasoning clearly applies to section 1521.

Doe v. Garrett

903 F.2d 1455 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 1990

Section 794(a) of the Rehabilitation Act 6 provides: No otherwise qualified individual with handicaps in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of her or his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied … Because Doe’s due process claim so clearly fails on the merits, we need not consider at any length the district court’s initial finding that Doe's claim is unreviewable under Mindes v.

Lori D. Sleeth v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

991 F.3d 1201 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2021

An abuse of discretion occurs when a court “applies an incorrect legal standard, relies on clearly erroneous factual findings, or commits a clear error of judgment.” United States v. $70,670.00 in U.S. … Establishing hardship was her burden, and she failed to 8  USCA11 Case: 20-10221 Date Filed: 03/19/2021 Page: 9 of 12 meet it.

Thomas E. Kondrak v. Anthony J. Principi

161 F. App'x 817 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 27, 2005

group; (2) he was subjected to an adverse employment action; (3) he was treated less favorably than similarly situated employees outside his race; and (4) he was qualified to do the job. … These conclusions were clearly correct, given that the evidence showed Alston to have certain attributes that Kondrak did not have, and further given our well-established precedent that a showing of pretext based on relative

United States v. Genaro Rafael Hernandez-Cano

808 F.2d 779 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 1987

Fleck’s search was clearly lawful because the Fourth Amendment does not extend to searches by private parties. … The Eleventh Circuit rule was as follows: To qualify for admissibility, there must be a reasonable probability that the evidence in question would have been discovered by lawful means, and the prosecution must demonstrate

John H. Harland Company, Cross-Appellant v. Clarke Checks, Inc., Cross-Appellee

711 F.2d 966 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 1983

Toy Loft, Inc., 684 F.2d at 831 (“adoption procedures used by [plaintiff] in the sale of its dolls qualify as protectable trade dress”); SK & F Co. v. … In both instances, the new accounts representatives clearly intended to place an order with Clarke, not with Harland.