Case law

Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Secretary of State for the State of Alabama

992 F.3d 1299 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 2021

And, as Judge Jones so clearly stated in her dissent from the Fifth Circuit’s holding in Veasey v. … The record clearly reflects factual disputes as to the true impact of the legislation on Black and Latino voters.

Kathy Hall Gordon v. Bibb County School District

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 29, 2023

A district court abuses its discre- tion when it applies the wrong legal standard, follows the wrong procedures, or makes a clearly erroneous finding of fact. … A reasonable accommodation is a modification or adjustment that enables a qualified individual to perform the es- sential functions of a position. US Airways, Inc. v.

Richardson v. Reno

162 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 1998

Although nothing in the record clearly establishes that the basis of the immigration judge's decision was a lack of jurisdiction, both parties agree that the immigration judge did not conduct a bond hearing, although witnesses … For example, INA § 240(c)(2)(A) provides that an alien has the burden of establishing eligibility for admission "clearly and beyond doubt" or "by clear and convincing evidence that the alien is lawfully present in the United

United States v. Calderon

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 14, 1997

While the relevance of this testimony may not be readily apparent, it was clearly not plain error to allow its admission. B. … We find that the district judge's quantity determination was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Jamel Melvin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2014

reasonable, determining whether the district court erred in calculating the guideline range, treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly … The district court should articulate enough to establish that it considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita v.

United States v. Edgar Jamal Gamory

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2011

We conclude that the rap video would not qualify under Crawford’s definition of “testimonial.” Id. at 51-52, 124 S. Ct. at 1364; see also, Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 126 S. … For these reasons, we cannot conclude that the District Court clearly erred in failing to find purposeful discrimination was not clearly erroneous. D.

Hernandez v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

408 F. App'x 316 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2011

Therefore, we may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United … “A state court acts contrary to clearly established federal law if it confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of the Supreme Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from

Carla Cornell v. CF Center, LLC

410 F. App'x 265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2011

The legislative history clearly states the congressional purpose to expand the coverage of the Act, i.e., to lump related activities together so that the annual dollar volume test for coverage would be satisfied.” 803 F … As with the joint enterprise analysis, whether a party qualifies as a joint employer for liability purposes depends on whether “as a matter of economic reality, the individual is dependent on the entity.” Antenor v.

United States v. Bailey

123 F.3d 1381 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 1997

It does not qualify. A reblue is a reblue," id. at 13. Bailey never informed Schaaf that he was having the gun refinished. … Offenses that do not qualify as part of a common scheme or plan may nonetheless qualify as part of the same course of conduct if they are sufficiently connected or related to each other as to

United States v. Scott W. Rothstein

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.”

United States v. Weeks

442 F. App'x 447 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 29, 2011

the factual finding of the magistrate judge was clearly erroneous. … Weeks argues that his prior drug convictions do not qualify categorically as serious drug offenses under the Act, but that argument fails.

Timothy Sneed v. Florida Department of Corrections

496 F. App'x 20 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 7, 2012

Thus, “clearly established Federal law” means the Supreme Court’s governing legal principles at the time the state court renders its decision. Id. at 71-72. … A state court decision “unreasonabl[y] appli[es]” clearly established law if the state court unreasonably applies the established law to the facts of a case. Williams, 529 U.S. at 407.

A.A.A. Always Open Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Dekalb County

129 F. App'x 522 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2005

DeKalb County and Sheriff Brown appeal the denial of their motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity as well as the grant of preliminary injunctive relief. … Under the rule established in McKinney v.

United States v. Jamel Melvin

579 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 12, 2014

reasonable, determining whether the district court erred in calculating the guideline range, treated the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, failed to consider the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors, selected a sentence based on clearly … The district court should articulate enough to establish that it considered the parties’ arguments and has a reasoned basis for exercising its own legal decisionmaking authority. Rita v.

Chapman v. AI Transport

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 1999

One method a plaintiff can use to establish a prima facie case for an ADEA violation is by showing that he (1) was a member of the protected age group, (2) was subjected to adverse employment action, (3) was qualified … Having alleged that his experience, education, and performance evaluations rendered him more qualified than Jones, Sevillian, and Smith for the positions which they received, Chapman has established his prima facie case,

United States v. Norman L. Young, Clyde Edward Young, Jr., A/K/A Peanuts, Clyde E. Young, Sr., A/K/A Red, Lucious Levon Banks, A/K/A Junior Banks, David Young, United States of America v. Patricia Young

39 F.3d 1561 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1994

The government suggests that these letters clearly refer to "Junior," which is Banks' nickname. … A district court's finding as to the quantity of drugs involved in a conspiracy will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. United States v.

United States v. Williams

444 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 2006

Generally, courts must determine this with respect to the actual depictions themselves. 62 While the pictures needn’t always be “dirty” or even nude depictions to qualify, screening materials through the eyes of a neutral … And Sender Two clearly intended that his recipients believe, however briefly, that the attached photos were sexually explicit depictions of minors.

Jonathan Hall v. Dekalb County Government

503 F. App'x 781 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2013

To the extent that Hall and Jackson raise issues that were not clearly presented to the district court, we do not address those issues. … ; (3) his employer treated similarly situated employees outside of his class more favorably; and (4) he was qualified to do the job.

Brandon Astor Jones v. GDCP Warden

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 20, 2014

We conclude that the Georgia Supreme Court’s rejection of Jones’s ineffective-assistance claims was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. See Strickland v. … Indeed, “[a] circuit court may . . . look to circuit precedent to ascertain whether it has already held that the particular point in issue is clearly established by Supreme Court precedent.

Lester Jenkins v. BP Exploration & Production Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2024

Plaintiffs in these actions must establish both general and specific causation. … Under Federal Rule of Evidence 702, expert evidence is ad- missible if the expert is qualified, the expert’s methodology reaches a “sufficiently reliable” conclusion under Daubert v.