Case law

Bridgette Frederick v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2001

Frederick attested that she was qualified for the promotion and that it should have been granted automatically; however, Moore denied her request, telling her that she “needed to do more things.” … At summary judgment, the only evidence Frederick offered on this point was her own testimony that she was qualified for the Coordinator II position and was denied the promotion.

Craig D. Lawrence, Sr., Ph.D. v. Dr. Perry W. Ward

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2019

On appeal, Lawrence challenges only the Court’s holding that the President enjoys official-capacity immunity. … Under McDonnell Douglas, a plaintiff makes out a prima facie case of discrimination case by establishing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that he “(1) is a member of a protected class; (2) was qualified for the position

Marcus R. Johnson v. Steven Upton

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 2010

established federal law. … established federal law.

Larry J. Johnson v. Louie L. Wainwright, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Respondent

778 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 1985

With respect to Mitigating Circumstance (6)(b), the Court does not find any credible evidence which would qualify in that respect. … The evidence clearly showed that the Defendant planned the robbery of the service station, executed the plan, and killed the service station operator because “dead witnesses don’t talk”.

Joseph Giardiello v. Balboa Insurance Company, a California Corporation, Defendants- Constantinos Xaros v. National American Fire Insurance Company, Joseph Giardiello v. Balboa Insurance Company, a California Corporation, Defendants- Constantinos Xaros v. National American Fire Insurance Company

837 F.2d 1566 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 1988

Balboa's motion to dismiss was denied (and its appeal on the question certified) because the court was uncertain whether an employer's surety qualified as an employer under ERISA and believed there were implications in precedent … To the extent the district court has weighed the evidence and resolved the facts--as it is permitted to do with respect to issues of subject matter jurisdiction--we accept these facts unless they are clearly erroneous.

Law Bulletin Publishing v. LRP Publications, Inc.

266 F.3d 1305 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 27, 2001

“[T]he evidence must establish lost profits with reasonable certainty such that an impartial and prudent mind would be satisfied.” Id. (citations omitted). … This type of order clearly qualifies as an order “for discovery” under Rule 26(c).

Maples v. Martin

858 F.2d 1546 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 2, 1988

The court also entered directed verdicts in favor of all four appellees in their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity. … Additionally, the Faculty Handbook establishes a grievance procedure which satisfies the requirement of due process. 7 See Stewart v.

In Re: Bonita B. Phillips, Jeffrey S. Phillips v. Epic Aviation

476 F. App'x 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2012

Only deliberate omissions qualify as false oaths justifying denial of discharge.” … The bankruptcy court determined that Phillips failed to establish when he disclosed the Cioffi transaction to the trustee.

Son H. Fleming v. Ralph Kemp

748 F.2d 1435 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 1984

Greeson’s testimony did not establish this point, however. … The court' excused no venire person who appeared to be qualified to sit. .

United States v. Marvin Baker

432 F.3d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 13, 2005

in examining Simmons at trial, counsel for both the defense and the government emphasized the overlap between the interview statements and Brantley’s “sworn” (i.e. grand jury) statements, for which Brantley was granted immunity … Thus, the government may introduce extrinsic offenses which qualify under 404(b) to prove defendant's state 51 of mind, unless defendant takes affirmative steps to remove the

William Reaves v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

717 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 2013

established federal law or was based on a unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). … Comm’n, 514 U.S. 35, 38, 115 S.Ct. 1203, 1206 (1995) (holding that there was interlocutory appellate jurisdiction to review the district court’s denial of summary judgment based on qualified immunity to individual officers

Gladyce v. CORNELIUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Louis W. SULLIVAN, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-Appellee

923 F.2d 1486 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 1991

The discretion belongs to Congress, unless the choice is clearly wrong, a display of arbitrary power, not an exercise of judgment.’ ” Oliver, 821 F.2d at 1515 (quoting Bowen v. … When such employment requires that provisions be made for the care of minor children, the mother naturally seeks the most qualified care available.

Rafael A. Llovera Linares v. Broward Co. Sheriff's

347 F. App'x 424 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 2009

After the district court dismissed the complaint against the Sheriff’s Office of Broward County for failure to state a claim, Grant and Vasconez moved for summary judgment and argued they were entitled to qualified immunity … Linares cites no exceptional circumstances that established a need for counsel. See id.

Jason C. Turk v. Timothy J. Bergman

685 F. App'x 785 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2017

Furthermore, as of January 9, 2014, the law was clearly established that a police officer may not use deadly force without warning against a person who was not committing a crime, resisting arrest, holding a weapon, or … On remand the district 6 There are more recent decisions not extant at the time of this 2014 shooting and thus inapplicable here because we examine clearly established federal law at the time of the shooting

Lindsey v. Navistar International

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

This, however, does not render the district court’s finding of proximate cause clearly erroneous. … Atlanta Center Ltd., 465 S.E.2d 456 (Ga. 1995) (“When a party is relying on inferences to prove a point, not only must those inferences tend in some proximate degree to establish the conclusion sought, but must also render

Community State Bank v. James Strong

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2011

. § 7-4-1, et seq., are not listed as qualifying “racketeering activity” in the Georgia RICO statute. See id. § 16-14-3(9)(A). 8 law-grounded claims. … We agree with the view that Section 27(a) does not provide immunity to a state bank for usury-related offenses if it is not the true lender of the loan under federal law.

Johnny Shane Kormondy v. Secretary, FLorida Department of Corrections

688 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2012

The statutory phrase “clearly established Federal law” refers only to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. … The decision failed subpart (1), he said, because it “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established” Supreme Court precedent, namely Cuyler v.

Childers v. Floyd

625 F.3d 1319 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2011

As explained in part III.A, supra, clearly established law says only that trial courts cannot bar all cross-examination into a witness’s possible biases. … Ct. at 1520, its decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law.

James McWilliams v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

940 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 15, 2019

McWilliams’ case] would not be ‘contrary to, or involve[ ] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.’” Id. at 706 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)). … The Supreme Court determined that it did not need to answer whether “Ake clearly established that a State must provide an indigent defendant with a qualified mental health expert retained specifically for

United States v. Carmelo Etienne

102 F.4th 1139 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2024

An error is plain only if binding precedent establishes the error or if the language of a statute or rule clearly resolves the issue. See United States v. … The dis- trict court ordered Etienne to pay a special assessment, and the fi- nancial disclosure condition is not clearly unrelated to that assess- ment. B.