Case law

Tanethia Holden v. Holiday Inn Club Vacations Incorporated

98 F.4th 1359 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2024

Instead, the party must clearly and unambiguously demarcate the specific claim and devote a discrete section of his argument to it so the court may properly consider it.” Brown v. … And we agree that “furnishers are qualified and obligated to assess issues such as whether debts are actually due and/or are col- lectible,” as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stresses in

Carolyn Wright v. City of Atlanta

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2026

Based on these factual contentions, Wright argues the district court had “bias” against her and “was clearly in a rush to grant” dismissal to the appellees. … While municipalities, like the City, qualify as “persons” under § 1983, they “cannot be held vicariously liable under § 1983 for constitutional violations 5 There are two other types of claims we

Jonathan Huey Lawrence v. Secretary Florida Department of Corrections

700 F.3d 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2012

The Florida Supreme Court determined that Lawrence failed to establish either deficient performance or prejudice. … The facts must positively, unequivocally and clearly generate the legitimate doubt.” (alterations and quotation marks omitted)).

Vega v. T-MOBILE USA, INC.

564 F.3d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2009

Moreover, with respect to the incentive-based portion of its employees’ compensation, “T-Mobile retains sole discretion to determine what transactions qualify for commission payout.” … Additionally, the document cautioned, “T-Mobile retains sole discretion to determine what transactions qualify for commission payout.”

United States v. Vertuies Wall

116 F.4th 1285 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 6, 2024

Applying the deferential standard of review, we cannot say the district court clearly erred. … To establish a drug trafficking conspiracy under 21 U.S.C.

United States v. Benjamin Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2023

Thus, the district court’s conclusion that it did not find anything that indicated ineffective assistance of counsel was simply another way of stating that Smith failed to establish good cause. … Sudden snatching is clearly the least of the three robbery acts criminalized. See O.C.G.A. § 16-8-40(a).

Nathan Smith vs Gary Hutchins, Sheriff, Edward J. Tarver, United States Attorney

426 F. App'x 785 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2011

Right of Access to Courts “It is now clearly established that prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts.” Barbour v. Haley, 471 F.3d 1222, 1225 (11th Cir. 2006) (citing Bounds v. … of access to the 7 courts, this Court has indicated that the constitutional right of access to the courts is “grounded in the First Amendment, the Article IV Privileges and Immunities

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.

Sandra D. Thompson v. Carrier Corp.

358 F. App'x 109 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 23, 2009

Thompson also addresses the merits of her failure-to-promote claim, arguing that she clearly established that her being denied a promotion was intentional discrimination in the workplace because she had filed a Charge of … A plaintiff can establish a prima facie case of discrimination based on circumstantial evidence by showing that: “(1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he suffered an adverse

United States v. Demetrius Floyd

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2026

“After eligibility is established, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. … “A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, or makes clearly erroneous factual findings.” Id.

Evans v. Stephens

387 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 2004

It clearly cannot be a vacancy that happens while the Senate is in session. … Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 , 942 at n. 13, 103 S.Ct. 2764 , 77 L.Ed.2d 317 (1983) (rejecting the argument that a law dating back to 1940 is immune to the constitutional scrutiny of courts simply because it was passed by Congress

United States v. Bascaro

742 F.2d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 1984

Professor Blakey argues that marijuana offenses do not qualify as racketeering activity under RICO, because Congress did not intend the phrase “narcotic or other dangerous drugs” to include marijuana offenses. … Bascaro through a pattern of racketeering activity; (2) that the evidence *1363 fails to establish that he committed two acts of racketeering which were connected, directly or indirectly, to the enterprise established by

Scott Boykin v. Honda Manufacturing of AL

288 F. App'x 594 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2008

In order to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is a qualified individual with or without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he … that established Honda did not regard Boykin as disabled as a result of his COPD.

United States v. Mario Gonzales

388 F. App'x 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2010

The district court did not clearly err when it refused to grant Gonzales an adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. See United States v. … For the foregoing reasons, the district court did not clearly err when it found that Gonzales did not qualify for a minimal or minor role adjustment pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2.

United States v. Robert Coleman Quarles

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2022

An error is plain if it is clearly contrary to settled law. See United States v. Shelton, 400 F.3d 1325, 1330-31 (11th Cir. 2005). … The documents must speak plainly in establishing whether the defendant necessarily committed the qualifying crime because there is a demand for certainty in deter- mining whether a defendant was convicted of a qualifying

SEC v. Adler

137 F.3d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 27, 1998

Trading on such information qualifies as a 'deceptive device' under § 10(b).” … However, it is also well established that this inference of possession is rebuttable. In Freeman v.

Lofton v. Secretary of the Department of Children & Family Services

377 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2004

In sum, I read Romer to stand for the proposition that when all the proffered rationales for a law are clearly and manifestly implausible, a reviewing court may infer that animus is the only explicable basis. … Our reading finds its legitimacy in the following passage from Lawrence, a passage in which the Court clearly limited the scope of its holding: The present case does not involve minors.

Smith v. Lockheed Martin Corp.

644 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2011

When, as here, the plaintiff claims that his employer discharged him on account of his race, he must establish four elements: (1) that he is a member of a protected class (here, Caucasian15 ); (2) that he was qualified … Here, Lockheed admitted that those two elements had been established.

Sam A. Virciglio v. Work Train Staffing LLC

674 F. App'x 879 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 2016

There clearly was no abuse of discretion here. … But even assuming Defendants established a prima facie case, the district court did not clearly err in finding that they failed to show purposeful discrimination.

United States v. Rothstein (In Re Rothstein, Rosenfeldt, Adler, P.A.)

717 F.3d 1205 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 12, 2013

10  Case: 11-10676 Date Filed: 06/12/2013 Page: 11 of 40 that [it would] use all forfeited property, less administrative costs, to reimburse qualified … In Stewart, “the government clearly traced laundered funds forfeited by the jury to Stewart’s Account. Stewart does not contest this tracing, which in any event the government clearly established.”