Case law

Meagher v. Dugger

861 F.2d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 1988

This case is clearly different from McElroy v. … In summary, we hold that the facts of this case establish sufficient cause and prejudice under the test of Wainwright v. Sykes, supra, to warrant escape from procedural default.

Jackson v. Okaloosa County

21 F.3d 1531 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 1994

Section 1983 provides for civil actions to prosecute a deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” … Thus, the jurisdiction to consider the claims is already established.

Andreas Roos v. U.S. Attorney General

167 F. App'x 752 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2006

See 8 U.S.C. § 1186a(b)(2) (“the burden of proof shall be on the Attorney General to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence . . .”) (emphasis added). … Section 1186a(c)(4) clearly places the burden on the alien: “The Attorney General, in the Attorney General’s discretion, may remove the conditional basis of the permanent resident status for an alien who fails to meet the

44 Fair empl.prac.cas. 594, 43 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 37,256 David Stinson v. Major General William A. Hornsby, Individually and as the Adjutant General of the Alabama National Guard, State of Alabama the Alabama National Guard Major Ernest L. Shipp, Individually and as an Officer of the Alabama National Guard Lt. Col. John Q. Adams, Individually and as an Officer of the Alabama National Guard George F. Hulsey, Individually and as an Officer of the Alabama National Guard

821 F.2d 1537 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1987

National Guard prohibited and refused to allow him the opportunity to gain a supervisory position, allowed white employees, with equal or fewer qualifications and experience, to gain supervisory positions, and allowed a less qualified … Analogizing to the doctrine established in Feres v.

Hudson Marine Management Services, Inc. v. Thomas Miller (Miami), Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2011

“‘A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the entirety of the evidence leads the reviewing court to a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” Id. (quoting Dresdner Bank AG v. … The Federal Rules of Evidence provide that “[i]f 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

Marie Therese Halim Assa'ad v. United States Attorney General, Immigration and Naturalization Service

332 F.3d 1321 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 5, 2003

The Attorney General has established regulations delegating and implementing this grant of discretion. See 8 C.F.R. § 212.5 . … The reference to readmission, however, is immediately qualified by the phrase, “provided his or her departure was authorized under the Service’s advance parole provisions contained in § 212.5(f).... ” Though there is some

James Long v. Alabama Department of Human Resources

650 F. App'x 957 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2016

The magistrate judge concluded that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims failed as a matter of law under a Pickering analysis, and that Buckner and Ficquette were entitled to qualified immunity on the claims. … The district court agreed that qualified immunity precluded relief on the First Amendment claims.

Lester Fisher v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

616 F. App'x 916 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2015

established federal law. … The Florida court did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law.

United States v. Carl Harold Myers

972 F.2d 1566 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 25, 1992

Myers also contends that Baker was not qualified as an expert witness to offer his opinion and that Baker was not experienced enough to evaluate Myers’ conduct. … At trial, the government introduced into evidence General Order 86-21 of the Doraville Police Department, establishing that the stun gun was not an authorized weapon.

Steven Smith v. G. Salter

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2019

To prevail on a § 1983 claim against a company that has contracted to provide medical care to prisoners, Smith must establish that his injury was the result of a policy or custom. See Buckner v. … a constitutional violation, we need not consider whether any of the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

Beck v. Prupis

162 F.3d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 1998

For instance, they set up an entity called Construction Performance Corporation (CPC), which extracted substantial "fees" from otherwise non-creditworthy contractors in order to qualify them for SIG surety bonds, in violation … Salinas states that criminal RICO conspiracy has no overt act requirement—the agreement itself is sufficient to establish culpability.

United States v. Alvenis Arias-Izquierdo

449 F.3d 1168 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2006

Arias-Izquierdo admits that the government presented sufficient evidence to establish that the crime of air piracy was committed by someone. … The jury clearly understood this instruction, as several of the defendants were found guilty of some but not all of the four charges, while others were found guilty of all four charges.

Baran v. Beaty

526 F.3d 1340 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 9, 2008

Baran has not shown the district court clearly erred by crediting 2 Beaty’s testimony. Consequently, we draw the following facts from the district court’s findings of fact. … Baran did not propose a specific safety plan for Samuel, suggest Samuel would qualify for protective services were he to be returned to Australia, or indicate how his sister (who once told Beaty that Baran’s abuse was “none

United States v. Justin Joseph Garza

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2023

Milkintas, 470 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted), as long as the defendant satisfies the criteria established in section 5C1.2, Cruz, 106 F.3d at 1557. … The district court didn’t clearly err in finding that Garza didn’t “tell all” about the chain of methamphetamine distribution.

Claudia Bennett v. Chatham County Sheriff Dept.

315 F. App'x 152 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 2008

On appeal Bennett does not challenge the district court’s rulings that: (1) the defendants in their official capacities are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (2) Bennett’s Title VII claims against the defendants … Bennett argues these reasons were pretext because she was more qualified than the chosen candidates. The record does not support Bennett’s argument that she was better qualified than other candidates.

Federal Trade Commission v. Garden of Life, Inc.

516 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 15, 2013

“The clear and convincing evidence must establish that: (1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and 1 In Bonner v. … The FTC’s argument on appeal is that the district court abused its discretion, and that the finding was clearly erroneous, because Bellinger was the only one qualified to speak to the Oceans Kids’ claims.

Kenny A. Ex Rel. Winn v. Perdue

532 F.3d 1209 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2008

That finding is clearly erroneous. … The prior panel precedent rule clearly forecloses their position.”); Wascura v.

Douglas Asphalt Co. v. Qore, Inc.

657 F.3d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 20, 2011

But ATS contends that the reports merely conveyed information that it recorded according to procedures that GDOT established and there was no libel because the test results truthfully reported those data. … It argues that the two companies could have chosen not to perform the tests for GDOT, or could at least have qualified their results.

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. USA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 2013

According to the Corps, those easements essentially rendered it immune from the Tribe’s suit for injunctive relief from the flooding of tribal lands. … We disagree; the interests obviously qualify as a property entitled to procedural due process protection.

United States v. Derrick S. Lewis

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2024

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Dawn’s testimony about Lewis’s photo was not a communication covered by the privilege. … Therefore, regardless of whether they qualify as business or official records, when state- ments are specifically prepared for use at a defendant’s trial, those statements are testimony against the