Case law

Panola Land Buying Association v. Clark

844 F.2d 1506 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 1988

This section waives sovereign immunity. … As one commentator has remarked, in James, the court "clearly held that the right to fees is the lawyer's, not the client's."

Church of Scientology Flag Service Org., Inc. v. City of Clearwater

2 F.3d 1514 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1993

Supreme Court has used a similar standard to determine whether particular federal statutes create actionable “rights” under § 1983, which creates a federal cause of action for “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Nevertheless, the Establishment Clause requirement that a statute must have a “clearly secular” purpose, over which any sectarian motivation does not “predominate,” is consistent with the allocation of proof adopted by the

Juan Carlos Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

993 F.3d 1266 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2021

Nor could he, because as explained previously the record clearly establishes that for at least fifteen years, Gil was able to enjoy fully and equally the services in question— filling prescriptions and using coupons—in … Even more clearly perhaps, the prescription refill and coupon-linking tools are “privileges” or “advantages.”

Ronald Wayland Cole v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 13, 2021

“Under the well- established prior panel precedent rule of this Circuit, the holding of the first panel to address an issue is the law of this Circuit, thereby binding all subsequent panels unless and until the first panel … To overrule our prior precedent, an intervening Supreme Court decision must be “clearly on point.” Atlantic Sounding Co., Inc. v. Townsend, 496 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).

Harris v. Garner

190 F.3d 1279 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 30, 1999

Second, as we have already discussed, the legislative history of the PLRA clearly shows that its purpose is to substantially reduce the number of prisoner lawsuits. See supra, at 2740-41. … immunity, and thus the district court had jurisdiction over the case for any violations that took place subsequent to the date of the amendment's enactment); Rowe v.

United States v. Alexis Baca Martinez

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

The district court found that “the Gov- ernment . . . established clearly that the weapon was . . . knowingly, intentionally involved with this particular drug transaction.” … That decision followed the prosecutor’s argument that “Martinez does not qualify for safety valve” and “the lowest sentence . . . [to] give him is . . . 120 months.”

United States v. Rodney Choute

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2026

That is sufficient to qualify Cacho Medina for the § 3B1.1(c) enhancement. See United States v. … That is enough to qualify her for the sophisticated-means enhancement. See Bell, 112 F.4th at 1342.

FOGADE v. Union Planters Corporation

263 F.3d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2001

Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the counterclaims on grounds that they were immune from suit under the foreign sovereign immunity doctrine and the act of state doctrine. … Lemacks, 50 F.3d 950, 953 (11th Cir. 1995) (“We note that issues that clearly are not designated in the initial brief ordinarily are considered abandoned.”)

Henry Arthur Drake v. Ralph Kemp, Warden

762 F.2d 1449 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 1985

The character of a weapon as such may be established by direct or by other evidence sufficient to establish it to be an offensive weapon. … you believe are so clearly proven to establish the guilt of the Defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and are inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis save that of his guilt.

Hertz Corp. v. Alamo Rent-A-Car, Inc.

16 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 1994

For these reasons, Alamo contends that Hertz’s motion is untimely, and therefore, that the court’s order of dismissal with prejudice is immune from Hertz’s belated attack. … The legitimacy of the March 8 order, therefore, cannot be established on the theory that the court was acting, sua sponte, pursuant to Rule 59(e). .

United States v. Christian Isaiah Carter

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 2026

. § 3553(a) factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen sentence.” Id. at 936. … However, Carter’s substantive reasonableness argument, while in- sufficient to establish reversible error on appeal, is not wholly with- out merit.

United States v. Nathan Smith

417 F. App'x 911 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 16, 2011

“A defendant need only be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.” Id. … procedural reasonableness, we ensure that the district court (1) properly calculated the Guidelines range, (2) treated the Guidelines as advisory, (3) considered the § 3553(a) factors, (4) did not select a sentence based on clearly

United States v. Jose Miguel Arboleda Velez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 13, 2020

Because the district court did not clearly err, we affirm Defendant’s sentences. I. … Thus, the evidence did not establish that Defendant was less culpable than the recruiters.

Johnson v. United States

353 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2003

As explained supra, however, Appellant cannot come within § 2255 ¶ 6(4) to establish a later accrual date. … The fact that he does not now stand convicted of those crimes clearly supports his claim because: (1) those seven vacated convictions were relied upon by the sentencing court in one way or another in deriving Johnson’s

Zuzanna Juris v. Inamed Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2012

In 1999, Judge Pointer directed that notice of the proposed Inamed class settlement be mailed to all individuals registered with the MDL 926 claims office, except for those who clearly would not qualify as class members or … She was, according to her physician, suffering from “silicone-related immune dysfunction, atypical neurological disease and infection.”

Annette Cox v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, a Corporation, Annette Cox, Cross-Appellees v. American Cast Iron Pipe Company, a Corporation, Cross-Appellant

784 F.2d 1546 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 26, 1986

Motor Convoy, 700 F.2d at 1347 . 79 These fact patterns are clearly distinct from that in the case at bar. … Nor can we conclude in any case that the employer clearly met its burden of proving that its actions were undertaken for lawful reasons.

United States v. Sherley Beaufils

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 25, 2025

To establish plain error, “there must be (1) an error (2) that is plain and (3) that has affected the defendant’s substantial rights.” United States v. … considering the third Pioneer factor, whether the rea- son for the delay was within the movant’s reasonable control, we have specifically held that “[c]ounsel’s misunderstanding of the law” does not qualify

Allapattah Services, Inc. v. Exxon Corp.

333 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2003

Thus, we find that § 1367 clearly and unambiguously provides district courts with the authority in diversity class actions to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the claims of class members who do not meet the minimum … After the hearing, at which the court heard testimony from both parties’ expert witnesses, it entered a lengthy order determining that (1) both parties’ expert witnesses were qualified to testify; (2) the methodologies of

Michael Luis Suarez v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 9, 2020

The district court ruled that Suarez “[could not] establish that he was actually innocent of his Section 924(c) conviction.” … “The term ‘crime of violence’ as Congress defined it in 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(3) clearly includes carjacking” because “‘[t]ak[ing] or attempt[ing] to take by force and violence or by intimidation,’ 18

Ernest Cadet v. State of Florida Department of Corrections

742 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 2014

It also provides: “[T]he fact that an action taken by an agent has unfavorable results for the principal does not establish that the agent acted adversely.” Id., cmt. c. … At the same time, the Court’s opinion does not set forth a clearly discernible standard which we may use to determine whether a petitioner has demonstrated “that some extraordinary circumstance stood in his way.”