Case law

United States v. Thomas F. Spellissy

710 F. App'x 392 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 3, 2017

Case: 17-11067 Date Filed: 10/03/2017 Page: 5 of 8 In McDonnell, the Supreme Court held that setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify … There, the jury had been instructed that the term “official action” included “actions that have been clearly established by settled practice as part of a public official’s position, even if the action was not taken pursuant

Reinaldo Ramon Lamonica v. Safe Hurricane Shutters, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 6, 2013

For the reasons that follow, Hoffman is not clearly on point and therefore did not overrule Quality Inn. … Our prior decisions addressing operational control have held that in order to qualify as an employer under the FLSA, a supervisor “must either be involved in the day-to-day operation or have some direct responsibility for

United States v. Svete

556 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 26, 2008

His impeachment of Austin was clearly a two-edged sword for the defense. … Clearly, Austin’s testimony was not the lynchpin of the government’s case. 4.

United States v. Carlos Vazquez

240 F. App'x 318 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 18, 2007

Vazquez did challenge the application of the Guidelines’ career-offender provision, arguing that the two qualifying drug convictions occurred approximately 15 years prior to the instant offense, and that the qualifying … The court then correctly announced that it “established a guideline range of 210 to 262 months.”

Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC v. 2.468 Acres of Land in Levy County Florida

59 F.4th 1158 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2023

If it clearly answers our question, our task ends with the text as well. Id. … Case: 21-11995 Document: 56-1 Date Filed: 02/03/2023 Page: 27 of 41 21-11995 Opinion of the Court 27 provision of eminent domain to those concerns which qualified

United States v. Michael Lee Boykins

380 F. App'x 930 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2010

We review a district court’s determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a minor role adjustment under the Guidelines only for clear error. United States v. … The defendant bears the burden at all times of establishing his minor role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 939.

Coralia Patricia Garcia v. Attorney General of the United States, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 2003

In order to establish a due process violation, an alien must show that he or she was deprived of liberty without due process of law, see Mathews v. … This Court clearly held that the failure to receive relief that is purely discretionary in nature does not amount to a deprivation of a liberty interest. Id. at 1146.

Joseph Anthony Martino, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 3, 2025

In short, “the taxpayer must clearly establish his entitlement to a particular deduction.” Long v. … Our analysis therefore must begin with the settlement agreement as incorporated by the divorce decree, which clearly stated that Martino’s debt for the marital residence was not alimony.

Lawton Chiles, Jr., Bob Martinez, Metropolitan Dade County, Intervenors-Appellants v. Richard Thornburgh, Attorney General of the United States

865 F.2d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 16, 1989

If he establishes each of the four requirements, the district court must allow him to intervene. … In this case, the detainees’ claims are related to the underlying suit and the detainees clearly would have standing. 18 .

Suntrust Bank v. Houghton Mifflin Company

252 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 25, 2001

Clearly, such a scene is fair game for criticism. … I arrive, however, at a less qualified conclusion on the matter.

Robert Garfield v. NDCHealth Corporation

466 F.3d 1255 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2006

“‘[W]hen two statutes are capable of coexistence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.’” J.E.M. Ag Supply v. … DeKalb goes on to allege that these GAAS violations were caused by “E&Y’s failure to qualify, modify or abstain from issuing its audit opinions, when it knew or recklessly turned a blind eye to NDC’s accounting manipulations

Certainteed Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

714 F.2d 1042 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 1983

NLRB, 373 F.2d 602, 606 (5th Cir.1967); however, once this showing has been made, the right to a hearing is established. … In this exceedingly difficult area, we are reminded that “ ‘[cjumulative experience’ begets understanding and insight by which judgments not objectively demonstrable are validated or qualified or invalidated.

Charlotte Taylor-Tillotson v. Commissioner of Social Security

696 F. App'x 972 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 22, 2017

marriage that met the relationship requirement for DWB eligibility and she did not waive this argument by failing to raise it before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”); (2) her amended alleged disability onset date established … But even if the magistrate judge could have ordered the refusal to reschedule, it would not have been an abuse of discretion because Taylor-Tillotson was not so clearly disabled that the ALJ committed a clear error in

United States v. Arnold Maurice Mathis

767 F.3d 1264 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 24, 2014

Detective Vizcarrondo’s affidavit established a connection between Mathis and the phone to be searched. … The affidavit also established a connection between Mathis’s cell phone and criminal activity.

Jekyll Island-State Park Authority v. Polygroup Macau Limited

140 F.4th 1304 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2025

“At the outset, we underscore that the minimum contacts analysis is immune to solution by checklist.” Diamond Crystal, 593 F.3d at 1267–68 (internal quotation marks omitted). … Polygroup’s website shows that its prod- ucts were “clearly calculated” to reach the U.S. market.

Pieter Jan Marthinus Swart v. U.S. Attorney General

552 F. App'x 922 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 15, 2014

We follow the BIA’s statutory interpretation of the INA unless the interpretation is unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary to law. See Castillo-Arias v. U.S. … To qualify for asylum or withholding of removal, applicants must establish that they are unable or unwilling to return to their home country “because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race

Oxford Furniture Companies v. Drexel Heritage Furnishings, Inc.

984 F.2d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 14, 1993

Drexel argues that Oxford failed to satisfy its burden to establish each of these elements. … Under these circumstances we conclude that Masco was not immune from a claim of tortious interference. The district court properly submitted the tortious interference claim to the jury- D.

United States v. Yolanda Goodlow

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2010

The district court did not clearly err by finding that Evans possessed a firearm in connection with the drug offense. … The challenger “bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable in the light of both [the] record and the factors in section 3553(a).” United States v.

Johnny Mack Westbrook v. Walter B. Zant, Warden, Georgia Diagnostic and Classification Center

704 F.2d 1487 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 16, 1983

With the filing of the Plea in Bar, West-brook’s counsel orally moved the state trial court to appoint, at state expense, an independent qualified psychologist or psychiatrist. … Because the prosecutor qualified the questions propounded to Sgt.

Phyllis Moreland Richardson v. City of Snellville, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 29, 2021

at 1225 (“[I]n adopting a comparator standard, we must not stray too far from paradigmatic notions of discrimination, lest we sanction a regime in which treating different things differently violates Title VII, which clearly … Under those circumstances, this alleged incident cannot establish pretext.