Case law

Ashley C. Scott v. United States of America, Treasury Department, Internal Revenue Service

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 29, 2024

And the regulations clearly state that a partial qualified offer still “must resolve all of the issues for the tax years covered by the offer.” Treas. Reg. § 301.7430-7(c)(3). … § 7430(c)(4)(B)(i) (“A party shall not be treated as the prevailing party . . . if the United States establishes that the position of the United States in the proceeding was substantially justified

Leonard J. Klay v. Humana, Inc.

382 F.3d 1241 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2004

These issues are clearly predominant over the only issue arguably common to the class—whether Motel 6 has a practice or policy of racial discrimination. Id. … plaintiff a less advantageous account, or cancelled the plaintiff’s account, but also 25  whether the particular plaintiff was of the age required by Avis to qualify

United States v. Alberto Pena

520 F. App'x 909 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2013

The district court’s determination that Peña was not entitled to a minor-role reduction was not clearly erroneous. … Moreover, Peña did not establish that he was less culpable than the other participants in the conspiracy.

In Re Grand Jury Proceedings. Sam Rabin, Witness-Appellee v. United States of America, Movant-Appellant

896 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1990

Prior to trial, the witness sought a ruling from the trial judge that no immunized grand jury testimony would be used against him on cross-examination. … The requested information, while clearly relevant to the pending indictments, was also clearly relevant to the stated purpose of the grand jury's ongoing investigation. 8 We cannot find clear evidence of prosecutorial misconduct

Enrique Patterson v. Salvador Lew

153 F. App'x 657 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 1, 2005

The government claimed that both lawsuits were barred by qualified immunity. II. … She claims that she established a prima facie case of disparate racial treatment.

United States v. Eric Rondell Gabe

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 2, 2026

“After eligibility is established, we review a district court’s denial of a prisoner’s § 3582(c)(1)(A) motion for abuse of discretion.” Id. … Amongst the conditions that qualify as “extraordinary and compelling reasons,” the Sentencing Guidelines state that the dis- trict court may find a sentence reduction is warranted if a defend- ant received

MDS (Canada) Inc. v. Rad Source Technologies, Inc.

720 F.3d 833 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2013

All of these factors establish that the issue of patent infringement here is not a substantial federal question for the purpose of section 1338. … Appellants have not countered these rationales; we cannot say that the finding by the district court was clearly erroneous. E.

Dadeland Depot, Inc., Dadeland Station Associates, Ltd. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., American Home Assurance Company

479 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 26, 2007

Contractor, with the consent of [Dadeland], to perform and complete the Construction Contract; or 4.2 Undertake to perform and complete the Construction Contract itself ...; or 4.3 Obtain bids and negotiated proposals from qualified … Paul “[had] not provided H as reimbursement toward the millions of dollars that have been spent correcting clearly deficient work performed by Walbridge.” R2-67, Exh. J. The letter accused St.

Sharon Winters v. Justin Ranum

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 13, 2018

immunity. … “[T]o defeat qualified immunity [Winters] must first demonstrate an issue of material fact about whether [Ranum] violated his constitutional rights.” Mobley, 783 F.3d at 1355.

Jonathan MackMuhammad v. Cagle's Inc.

379 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2010

To establish a prima facie 3 case, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he was qualified for his job; (3) he was subjected to an adverse employment … Indeed, MackMuhammad did not produce evidence sufficient to show that he was qualified for the superintendent position.

United States v. Delancy

502 F.3d 1297 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2007

Although the district court did not clearly err in finding that Godfrey voluntarily consented, this does not end our inquiry. … However, it is clearly binding on us. See United States v.

Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company v. L. Pellinen Construction, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 12, 2021

Florida law, the doctrine of judicial estoppel applies where (1) a party that success- fully maintained a claim or position in a previous judicial proceed- ing (2) attempts to make a completely inconsistent claim or take a clearly … The district court did not err in finding that the Mattamy defendants qualified as additional insureds under the commercial general liability insurance policy issued by Endurance to Pellinen, and that the Workers’ Compensation

United States v. Rodney Fernandez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2018

McCorkle, 321 F.3d 1292, 1295n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (stating that, under the bona fide purchaser provision, “the only assets that are potentially immunized from forfeiture are those for which value has been given”). … precedent of the Fifth Circuit prior to October 1981 is binding on this court.) 4  Case: 17-10802 Date Filed: 03/30/2018 Page: 5 of 5 title, and could not qualify

United States v. Karamchand Doobay

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 28, 2022

He again argued that, because of the pandemic, his medical conditions (specifically, his asthma and hypertension) created a health risk that qualified as an extraordinary and compelling reason to release him. … Summary affirmance is warranted when one of the parties is so “clearly right as a matter of law” that “there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case.” Groendyke Transp., Inc. v.

DA Mortgage, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach

486 F.3d 1254 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 18, 2007

See Cannabis Action Network, 231 F.3d at 770 (noting that the key to determining whether a statute qualifies as a prior restraint is whether it authorizes the suppression of speech in advance of its expression). … Clearly, the standard needs to be flexible.

United States v. Drury

396 F.3d 1143 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2005

In fact, the trial judge excluded the statement because he found that “the conditions established by [United States v. Tome] of admissibility of such a statement have not been established here.” … Applying the three-part reversibility analysis outlined above, we conclude that this charge is clearly “substantially correct” under the first prong.

United States v. Torrance James Lockett

810 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2016

To start with an easy example, suppose a statute provides an element that clearly sweeps beyond the generic crime. … apartment, building, erection, shed or box in which there sleeps a proprietor, tenant, watchman, clerk, laborer or defendant under that divisible statute, the jury necessarily found that he committed the ACCA- qualifying

United States v. Ronald Roscoe

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

So only one of the two instances described in Roscoe’s comments to Emma need qualify to trigger the pattern enhancements. … As we’ve explained above, the same conduct may qualify as both “sexual abuse or exploitation” and “prohibited sexual conduct.”

Arlene Keller, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald D. Keller v. The Miami Herald Publishing Co., a Florida Corporation, Arlene Keller, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Gerald D. Keller v. The Miami Herald Publishing Co., a Florida Corporation, and Knight-Ridder Newspapers, Inc., a Florida Corporation

778 F.2d 711 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 19, 1985

Finally, the medium in which the statement was expressed clearly signaled to its readers that the statement was merely an opinion. … Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 , 94 S.Ct. 2997 , 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Supreme Court suggested that the first amendment immunizes statements of pure opinion from defamation suits, because unlike statements of fact,

Ivonne E. Galdames vs N & D Investment Corp.

432 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 23, 2011

Indeed, facts judicially admitted are facts established not only beyond the need of evidence to prove them, but beyond the power of evidence to controvert them.” … First, they argue that the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff Osorio did not qualify for the “executive exemption” to the FLSA. 29 C.F.R. § 541.100.