Case law

George 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.

Greater Orlando Aviation Authority v. Federal Aviation Administration, Guy Gannett Publishing Co. D/B/A Radio Station Wmnz (Am), Intervenor-Respondent. Greater Orlando Aviation Authority v. Federal Aviation Administration, Guy Gannett Publishing Co. D/B/A Radio Station Wwnz (Am), Intervenor-Respondent

939 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

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

789 F.3d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2015

Ct. at 1656 (holding “an agency’s decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review under § 701(a)(2)”); see also Conservancy of Sw. Fla. v. U.S. … An agency decision is harmless “when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.” U.S. Steel Corp. v.

Kenneth E. Bullington v. M.C. Precise

698 F. App'x 565 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 17, 2017

This situation is similar to the qualified immunity defense under which we accept appellate review under the collateral order doctrine. See Tinney v. … unless clearly erroneous.”

Carl Dorelien v. U.S. Attorney General, John Ashcroft, Immigration and Naturalization Service

317 F.3d 1314 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2003

Dorelien is represented by counsel and clearly has resources to continue his petition for review in this Court of his wholly discretionary claim after the INS removes him to Haiti. III. … in the immigration context where the Supreme Court repeatedly has admonished that "the power to expel or exclude aliens [i]s a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune

American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County School Board

557 F.3d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 5, 2009

“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites.” All Care Nursing Serv., Inc. v. … immunity).

United States v. Howard Gaines

382 F. App'x 908 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 15, 2010

The district court did not clearly err in finding that Gaines’ offense involved sophisticated means. … Accordingly, Gaines has failed to establish that his 96-month total term of imprisonment is substantively unreasonable. IV.

United States v. Katay Joseph

611 F. App'x 946 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2015

The established procedure, however, need not be detailed. United States v. Johnson, 777 F.3d 1270, 1277 (11th Cir. 2015). … § 322.50, as evidence that the officers failed to follow established procedures.

United States v. Ileana Rodriguez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 14, 2023

The Government is entitled to summary affirmance of the district court’s denial of Rodriguez’s § 3582(c)(2) motion because its position is clearly correct as a matter of law. … U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13, comment n.1(A) (providing the defendant’s medical condition qualifies as an ex- traordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release if she is “suffering from a serious physical

Jack Carlton House v. Charles Balkcom, Warden, Georgia State Prison

725 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 13, 1984

The state of Dorothy Atkins’s trial expertise is clearly shown by the fact that, in the process of interviewing her husband about the bruises he witnessed on House’s body, he had to coach her from the stand. 5 Even though … Their state of preparation qualified them only as spectators.

Rik Sargent v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

480 F. App'x 523 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2012

Maxwell, 132 S.Ct. 611, 615 (2012) (Scalia, J. dissenting), for the proposition that case law has clearly established that the prosecution team involves all representatives of the state. … But this case does not present us with that option because this is not simply a question of whether the state court correctly applied clearly established law. See Renico v.

John Broz v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health & Human Services, a Department of the United States Government, Richard D. Holmes v. Richard S. Schweiker, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Corrine Little v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Thomas O. Jones v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Fred Soesbe v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services

677 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.

Marguerite T. Martin v. Teleperformance Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 23, 2021

To make a prima facie showing of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must establish “that, at the time of the adverse employment action, she had a disability, she was a qualified individual, and she was subjected to … Martin has not shown that she qualifies as disabled within the meaning of the Act. First, she has not established that her impairment—anemia— substantially limits any major life activity.

United States v. McGarity

669 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

Merritt v. Dillard Paper Company

120 F.3d 1181 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 1997

As to "participated in any manner," the adjective "any" is not ambiguous; it has a well-established meaning. … Otherwise, clearly expressed legislative decisions would be subject to the policy predilections of judges.

Jack E. Alderman v. William Terry

468 F.3d 775 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 30, 2006

Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), establishes the test that governs claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, i.e., the “clearly established Federal law” relevant to this case under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). … He contends that the record clearly establishes that his attorneys did not make a strategic or tactical decision to forego presenting life-history mitigation evidence, but instead misunderstood the law regarding mitigation

United States v. Watchmaker

761 F.2d 1459 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 30, 1985

Courts have also rejected the argument that acts which are part of the same scheme or transaction cannot qualify as distinct predicate acts. See United States v. … The reasoning applied in Bagaric is clearly applicable to the instant case as well. X.

United States v. Anthony Jerome Bell

652 F. App'x 741 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 7, 2016

This established a guideline range of 360 months’ to life imprisonment. … It is undisputed that the court found Bell to be a career offender at his original sentencing, even if that determination now appears to be clearly erroneous.

LEAF v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 1997

See id. at 602-03; cf. id. at 602 & n. 47 (collecting cases in which the court "scrutinized regulations immune from direct review by reviewing the denial of a subsequent rulemaking petition which challenged the regulations … The first step in the Chevron framework requires that we ascertain whether Congress clearly expressed its intent in the statute.

Zoltan Barati v. Florida Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2021

With respect to liberty, there is clearly no freestanding liberty interest in maintaining a qui tam suit. … Insofar as this formulation requires further analysis, this high standard clearly is not met here.