Case law

Nancy Conner vs Michael J. Astrue

415 F. App'x 992 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 28, 2011

A claimant bears the initial burden of establishing the existence of a qualifying disability. Moore, 405 F.3d at 1211. … We apply a three-part standard when a claimant seeks to establish disability through her own testimony regarding pain or other subjective symptoms.

Bartels v. Alabama Commercial College

54 F.3d 702 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

In that case, a husband and wife, who claimed that the wife had contracted acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS) from a transfusion of contaminated blood the Red Cross supplied, filed a state law tort action against … Congress therefore has clearly indicated the particular federal court it sought to confer jurisdiction upon. See American National Red Cross, 505 U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2477 (Scalia, J., dissenting).

Duharte v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

448 F. App'x 959 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 2011

Thus, in this case, we must determine whether the state court’s conclusion that petitioner was not entitled to counsel at her resentencing was contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal … Under clearly established federal law, Duharte was thus entitled to counsel at her resentencing. Rothgery, 554 U.S. at 212, 128 S. Ct. at 2591; see Gardner, 430 U.S. at 358, 97 S. Ct. at 1205.

Therman Jerry Davis v. Social Security Adm. Comm.

346 F. App'x 439 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 23, 2009

“A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote v. Chater, 67 F.3d 1553, 1562 (11th Cir. 1995). … Social security “regulations place a very heavy burden on the claimant to demonstrate both a qualifying disability and an inability to perform past relevant work.”

Bernie Harry v. Wayne Marchant

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

This scenario clearly conflicts with a common sense reading of EMTALA as well as the congressional intent to protect patients in this very circumstance.4 See Hardy v. New York City Health & Hosp. … To establish a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must allege facts in support of the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; (2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant

Bernie Harry v. Wayne Marchant

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 10, 2001

This scenario clearly conflicts with a common sense reading of EMTALA as well as the congressional intent to protect patients in this very circumstance.4 See Hardy v. New York City Health & Hosp. … To establish a claim under § 1981, a plaintiff must allege facts in support of the following elements: (1) the plaintiff is a member of a racial minority; (2) an intent to discriminate on the basis of race by the defendant

Hardwick v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

803 F.3d 541 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

Federal law” as clearly established by Supreme Court holdings, § 2254(d)(1); “involved an unreasonable application” of such law, id.; or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” in light of the record … On the record before us, we cannot say that this factual finding is clearly erroneous.

Ms. Mislehivy Calvo v. Walgreens Corporation

340 F. App'x 618 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2009

In order to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that: “(1) she has a disability; (2) she is a qualified individual; and (3) she was subjected to unlawful discrimination because … Second, Calvo must show that she is a “qualified individual.” Morisky, 80 F.3d at 447.

Freeman v. City of Mobile, Alabama

146 F.3d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 1998

On appeal, Appellants argue that the City has not qualified for a 7(k) exemption, that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Auer v. Robbins, __ U.S. __, 117 S. Ct. 905, __ L. … us to hold that the City’s sergeants and lieutenants do not qualify for the executive exemption because they are subject to pay-docking.

United States v. Gabriel Brown

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2025

He first argues that his 2007 and 2009 Georgia cocaine convictions don’t qualify as “controlled substance offenses” under U.S.S.G. … Date Filed: 08/07/2025 Page: 11 of 11 23-13804 Opinion of the Court 11 reasonably believed that the shooter was in the car, the location of the car established

United States v. Siegelman

561 F.3d 1215 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

After his election, he established the Alabama Education Lottery Foundation (the “Foundation”) to raise money to campaign for voter approval of a ballot initiative to establish a state lottery. … We conclude that this finding of fact is not clearly erroneous.

Conner v. Hall

645 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2011

If a state court has adjudicated the merits of a claim, 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 … “To qualify as an ‘adequate’ procedural ground, a state rule must be ‘firmly established and regularly followed.’” Walker v. Martin, --- U.S. ---, 131 S. Ct. 1120, 1127–28 (2011) (citation omitted).

Jennings v. BIC Corporation

181 F.3d 1250 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1999

The first element that must be shown to establish negligence is that the defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff. See Robertson v. … “If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training

Timothy D. Carr v. Derrick Schofield

364 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2004

Further, we can grant federal habeas relief only where the state court’s decision (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, … Carr I, 480 S.E. 2d at 593-94. 21  The district court found “no decision contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined

United States v. Juby Deon Battle and Donald Shannon Bullard

892 F.2d 992 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 8, 1990

But the experts quarreled, qualified and equivocated on the effect, if any, that the nine packages of cocaine would have had on the plane’s performance, and a consensus was not reached. … Bimini, an island in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas, clearly is outside the customs territory of the United States. .In Bonner v.

Sandra J. Davis v. Valley Hospitality Svcs., LLC

214 F. App'x 877 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 13, 2006

The letter did not validly amend the previously filed charge because it clearly sought to add new separate charges of class-wide discrimination instead of clarifying or amplifying the original allegations. … Duncan was a member of a protected class, was subjected to an adverse employment action, and was qualified for the position for which she applied.

United States v. Kevin Tramaine Chavous

545 F. App'x 813 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 21, 2013

was “clearly improbable.” … “The defendant has the burden of establishing his role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence.” Id.

Xiu Ying Wu v. U.S. Attorney General

712 F.3d 486 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2013

According to the BIA, the IJ’s adverse-credibility determination was not clearly erroneous: [W]e agree that it seems implausible that the respondent would have presented herself for a pregnancy examination as … The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security or the Attorney General may grant asylum if the alien first demonstrates that she qualifies as a “refugee.” INA § 208(b)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1)(A).

United States v. Oliver Devaun O'Sullivan

361 F. App'x 993 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2010

O’Sullivan argues that a defendant may qualify for safety-valve relief and maintain his innocence at the same time. … We need not decide that issue because the district court did not clearly err in finding that O’Sullivan failed to qualify for relief.

U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Southern Trust Metals, Inc.

894 F.3d 1313 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

But other misrepresentations found by the district court easily qualify as material. … Establishing proximate cause requires more. See Ray v.