Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
9,466 results
1.26s
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. United States Army Corps of Engineers
619 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2010
The district court’s finding that there was an “explicit exemption” from the environmental laws, while yielding the correct result, blurred the lines between the categories of repeal established in the cases. … The environmental laws clearly applied to such a bricks-and-mortar project. To the extent they did, the notwithstanding clause repeals them.
Cited 44 timesPublishedOravec v. Sunny Isles Luxury Ventures, L.C.
527 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 14, 2008
. § 102(a)(5) (establishing copyright protection for “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works”). … We “will only reverse a district court’s denial of a motion to amend in instances in which the district court has clearly abused its discretion.” Henson v.
Cited 141 timesPublishedDean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.
220 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 4, 2000
Act divided the county “into four commissioner’s districts” and required that “one commissioner shall be elected from each of said districts . . .; provided, that all of said commissioners shall be elected by all of the qualified … In order “[t]o qualify as a party with standing to litigate, a person must show, first and foremost, an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized and actual or imminent.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedDorothy Snow v. Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company
590 F. App'x 832 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2014
Moreover, not only was the term not ambiguous, but the district court did not clearly err in construing the Normal Retirement Date to be 65 year old. … Thus, while Meadowcraft may not have been expressly designated as the administrator in the Plan, it qualifies as such by virtue of being a “plan sponsor.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 20, 2025
The district court abuses its dis- cretion if it “applies an incorrect legal standard, relies on clearly er- roneous factual findings, or commits a clear error of judgment.” Id. … We agree with Moore that the district court committed legal error in concluding he could not qualify as a “pre- vailing party.”
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedBirnholz v. 44 Wall Street Fund, Inc.
880 F.2d 335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 10, 1989
In contrast, the supreme court has defined substantive law "as that ... which creates, defines, and regulates rights, or that part of the law which courts are established to administer." Id. … The amended statute did not withdraw the exemption, nor change the requirements for qualifying for it nor alter its duration.
Cited 1 timesPublished677 F.2d 1351 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 1982
The Act and the regulations 3 The Act provides benefits to qualified individuals who are disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 423 (a)(1). … This is clearly adjudicative. The second element looks to conditions of the national job market. It is concerned with broad sociological data that is not related to the individual parties.
Cited 2 timesPublishedUnited States v. Odalys Fernandez, e tal
553 F. App'x 927 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2014
First, the district court did not clearly err when it determined that the director of nursing was a qualified custodian of the reports for the purposes of the exception to hearsay for business records. … The district court did not clearly err when it found that the witness was sufficiently qualified to testify about the payroll reports.
Cited 1 timesUnpublishedCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 20, 2026
Rather, a district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, makes clearly erroneous factual findings, or commits … But none of King’s qualifying drug convictions involved mere possession.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGore v. Secretary for the Department of Corrections
492 F.3d 1273 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 2007
Section 2254(d)(1) explicitly establishes Supreme Court precedent as the vel non of “clearly established federal law.” § 2254(d)(1). … The district court held that “the Florida Supreme Court’s decision with respect to this issue was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal
Cited 34 timesPublishedTravelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Ocean Reef Charters LLC
71 F.4th 894 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2023
A party can show there is no genuine dispute of material fact by “showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce … Of course, a properly disclosed and qualified expert can testify as both an expert and a fact witness.
Cited 16 timesPublishedUnited States v. Rosa Enedia Pazos Cingari
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 17, 2020
The government also points to the language of the Guidelines commentary, which states that the cross reference applies only when a defendant’s conduct qualifies as an offense “involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly … the conduct established “an offense more aptly covered by another guideline.”
Cited 0 timesPublishedJohn Wayne Holsomback v. J.D. White, Warden, Attorney General of the State of Alabama
133 F.3d 1382 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 1998
Nolen was qualified as an expert in family medicine and all the areas it encompasses. (See R.1-7, Ex. F at 17). Dr. … Because Holsomback clearly addressed this deficiency in recounting the procedural history of the case, (see R.1-1 at 60-61), however, we interpret his petition to include this allegation. See Golden v.
Cited 70 timesPublishedUnited States v. Jonathan Markovich
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 14, 2024
Expert testimony is admis- sible if its proponent establishes that (1) the expert is “qualified” to testify about the subject, (2) the “methodology” by which the ex- pert reaches his conclusions is … Parks “clearly explained” to the jury that her summary ref lected only the patients whose files she reviewed—not the entire patient population—and defense counsel cross-examined Parks about the limitations
Cited 0 timesPublished651 F. App'x 963 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2016
. § 3E1.1., “Acceptance of Responsibility,” states: (a) If the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense, decrease the offense level by 2 levels. … To establish plain error, a party must show that (1) the district court erred; (2) the error was plain or obvious; (3) the error harmed or prejudiced the party’s substantial rights; and (4) the error damaged the fairness
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedIraola & CIA v. Kimberly-Clark
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2000
See Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, Pub.L. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976). 9 To support its interpretation of § 1332 (a)(2), Iraola cites the canon of statutory interpretation … Indeed, an equally plausible interpretation is that Congress was just making explicit in subparagraph (4) the central and well-established concept of providing the federal forum where the opposing parties are diverse.
Cited 0 timesPublished939 F.2d 954 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 23, 1991
Sec. 77 establishes standards for determining obstructions in navigable airspace and provides for aeronautical studies of obstructions to air navigation to determine their effect on the safe and efficient use of airspace … (emphasis added). 11 The FAA's determination fell under Sec. 77.19(c)(1), which states that the construction or alteration does not qualify as an obstruction 12 At times in the briefs, the parties call the Board of Commissioners
Cited 8 timesPublishedIgor Castang v. Katherine Jeong-Eun Kim
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2024
that such or- der would be clearly inappropriate.” 22 U.S.C. § 9007(b)(3). … Although we have not yet considered what qualifies as a “financial hardship,” district courts in our circuit have.
Cited 0 timesUnpublishedGeorge Collier v. Commissioner of Social Security
504 F. App'x 835 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 23, 2013
Collier argued that his schizophrenia rendered him incapable of pursuing his administrative remedies, but the district court did not clearly err in finding that the record belied Collier’s argument. … And Collier stated in his November 1989 letter to the Commission that he understood he “[might] again be qualified for disability,” yet he preferred to “do without” benefits.
Cited 1 timesUnpublished669 F.3d 1218 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2012
The verdict shall be affirmed so long as a reasonable juror could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See id. at 1357 . … As we found in that case, where there is ample evidence of “numerous obstructive actions,” the Guidelines clearly contemplate that such actions qualify for the enhancement. 61 See Wayerski, 624 F.3d at 1352 (noting previous
Abrogated on other grounds by Paroline v. United States, 134 S. Ct. 1710 (2014)Cited 145 timesPublished
Ask Donna