Case law

Richard L Sealey v. Warden GDCP.

954 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 31, 2020

Puente is one of the test’s developers, and that, as a neuropsychologist, he is more qualified than the state’s expert, a forensic psychologist. … Accordingly, the state court’s decision that Sealey suffered no prejudice as a result of his counsel’s failure to present Tutein was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

United States v. Samuel Lee Lynch

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

Similarly, where a defendant fails to clearly state the grounds for his objection in the district court, we review only for plain error. United States v. … To establish plain error, a defendant must show “(1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” Rodriguez, 751 F.3d at 1251–52 (quoting United States v.

Maryla Madura v. City of North Beach, Florida

517 F. App'x 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2013

We review the district court’s evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion and will reverse “only if the complaining party establishes that the evidentiary ruling resulted in a substantial prejudicial effect, thus warranting … immunity on the § 1983 false arrest claims against Marciante and Sanchez and the excessive force claim against Sanchez and in granting summary judgment on the false arrest/false imprisonment tort claim against the City

United States v. Noe Burgos

720 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 12, 1983

Burgos was also not qualified to purchase these firearms directly from the gun shops. … In this case the record establishes appellant’s possession of a large supply of illegally purchased firearms and his willingness to sell and ship these firearms.

De Perez v. AT&T Company

139 F.3d 1368 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 29, 1998

The federal nature of the right to be established is decisive--not the source of the authority to establish it. Id. at 483 (citations omitted). Although factually distinct, Russell is analytically analogous. … This concern has been most clearly expressed in cases involving actions to establish title to land in which the plaintiff must trace the source of the title 10 In contrast, where a treaty creates substantive

United States v. Aseracare, Inc.

938 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 9, 2019

Such a clinical judgment would clearly be illegitimate under the law. … But Walker is clearly distinguishable and does not control our analysis.

Jose Rivera v. Matthew Ring

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2020

“We review the district court’s resolution of a Batson challenge under the clearly erroneous standard.” Cent. … Here, the “relevant circumstances” show that the district court did not clearly err in finding that Rivera did not establish a prima facie case that the juror was struck because of his race.

Estate of Jason Jerry Owens v. Geo Group, Inc.

660 F. App'x 763 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2016

We noted that “the inmate never told prison officials that he ‘feared’ his attacker, never told them that he had been ‘clearly threatened,’ and never asked to be placed in ‘protective custody.’” Rodriguez v. … Paulk, 187 F.3d 1339, 1352 (11th Cir. 1999) (remanding for the district judge to grant the defendants summary judgment based on qualified immunity and to determine whether the remaining state-law claims should be dismissed

Citadel Securities LLC v. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2026

Quotations on IEX Options qualify as “protected.” The third issue before us is whether quotes subject to the ORP qualify as “protected” quotations. … Worse, Citadel doesn’t establish that its proposed less intru- sive alternatives were even possible.

Sentinel Communications Co. v. Watts

936 F.2d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1991

The System is clearly one of limited access that cannot be altered without prior federal approval; automotive service stations, for example, as well as other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users, may … officials in their official capacities are deemed to be suits against the state, the district court found that Sentinel’s damages claim was against the State of Florida, and that Florida has not waived its eleventh amendment immunity

United States v. Jonathan Scott Baldwin, in Re Steven Jackson, Esquire

770 F.2d 1550 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 17, 1985

Lespier, 558 F.2d 624, 627-28 (1st Cir.1977) (lawyer’s failure to appear because he was at a political conference, without taking “the smallest step of giving notice earlier,” would have been “clearly punishable as criminal … “Criminal contempt is established when it is shown that the defendant is aware of a clear and definite court order and willfully disobeys the order.” United States v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. State Board of Equalization

472 F.3d 1281 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 2006

Cullerton, 523 F.2d 439, 441 (7th Cir. 1975) (Tax Injunction Act “codifies the well-established federal policy of noninterference in matters of state taxation”). … Although the district court found the Railroad’s expert well qualified, other comments raise serious concerns about the weight that would have been given to the opinions expressed.

Government of the United States Virgin Islands v. Commissioner of IRS

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

Thus, the United States explained, its exclusion from the District Court case “would clearly impair the United States’ ability to advocate for its position on residency in the [parallel Tax Court case].” Id. … Thus, the Virgin Islands qualifies for intervention of right under Rule 24(a)(2).

McKinzie v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

265 F. App'x 858 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 2008

A state court decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if either “(1) the state court applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law, or (2) when faced with materially … An “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law may occur if the state court “identifies the correct legal rule from Supreme Court case law but unreasonably applies that rule to the facts of the petitioner

Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc.

119 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 1997

. § 1102 (a)(1) (“Every employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument.”). … We need not make this assumption for this hypothetical scenario, however, because Article XIII of the Plan clearly gives the administrator the authority to impose a moratorium. .

United States v. Justin Case Lebarron

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2026

Each enhancement now includes either a mandatory minimum of twenty years or, with a defendant’s qualifying prior conviction, a mandatory minimum of life imprisonment. Id. … Dubois, 139 F.4th 887, 892 (11th Cir. 2025) (“An intervening Supreme Court decision abrogates our precedent only if the intervening decision is both ‘clearly on point’ and ‘clearly contrary to’

Charter Federal Savings And Loan Association v. Office Of Thrift Supervision

912 F.2d 1569 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 2, 1990

Established in 1954, Charter Federal is headquartered in West Point, Georgia. … Sec. 563b.3(a) (1989) ("The provisions of this subpart shall govern conversions undertaken pursuant to any other subpart of this part unless clearly inapplicable.").

United States v. Alexander Michael Roy

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 2014

Instead of being “substantially similar” to this case, as the majority believes, the facts in Green are clearly distinguishable. … and irrefutably the record establishes that there was no prejudice.

United States v. Cook

181 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

Application Note Five to § 3C1.2 qualifies as an instance in which the Sentencing Guidelines have specified that § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) does not apply. … Because the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that the high speed chase was reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary to address the difficult question of law which the majority resolves.

United States v. Cook

181 F.3d 1232 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 20, 1999

Application Note Five to § 3C1.2 qualifies as an instance in which the Sentencing Guidelines have specified that § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) does not apply. … Because the district court was clearly erroneous in finding that the high speed chase was reasonably foreseeable, it is not necessary to address the difficult question of law which the majority resolves.