Case law

Associated Transport v. Productos

197 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 8, 1999

General jurisdiction has been found lacking even where a company had employees, agencies and salespeople regularly in the forum; where the company was qualified to do business in the forum; and where it regularly solicited … Clearly, Proficol’s nine sales over four years is insufficient by these yardsticks.

LeBlanc v. Unifund CCR Partners

601 F.3d 1185 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

Unifund’s business activities clearly involve “collecting or attempting to collect consumer debt” from debtors located within Florida by means of interstate communication originating from outside of the state. … JP Morgan Chase has 290 offices in Florida.26 Because at least one Bank One affiliate has an office in Florida, Unifund qualifies as an “out-of-state debt collector” within the meaning of the FCCPA.

Fred Anderson, Jr. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

752 F.3d 881 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 12, 2014

The phrase “clearly established Federal law” refers only to “the holdings, as opposed to the dicta,” of the Supreme Court decisions extant at the time of the State court adjudication. Williams v. … Washington.”)-, Wiggins, 539 U.S. at 522 , 123 S.Ct. at 2536 (“In highlighting counsel’s duty to investigate [in Williams ] ... we applied the same ‘clearly established’ precedent of Strickland we apply today.”).

Ramos-Barrientos v. Bland

661 F.3d 587 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 27, 2011

Before an employer may obtain certification to hire workers through the H-2A program, the Secretary of Labor must be satisfied that “there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified” to work for the … “Acquiescence by the principal in conduct of an agent whose previously conferred authorization reasonably might include it, indicates that the conduct was 29 authorized; if clearly

Jiu Shu Wang v. U.S. Attorney General

152 F. App'x 761 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2005

The IJ stated that he was “satisfied that this is clearly a fraudulent, frivolous application, but will withhold[] ruling on the same since the Government did not request it.” Id. … “The regulations are clear that where an applicant has established past persecution,” the burden of establishing changed conditions or the possibility of internal relocation “lies with the INS.”

Daniel W. Taylor v. Sgt. Wesley Carmack

447 F. App'x 78 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2011

“Summary judgment is appropriate if the evidence establishes ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” McCormick v. … Because no constitutional violation occurred, we will not address Carmack’s qualified immunity defense. AFFIRMED. 7

Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys" R" US, Inc.

611 F.3d 1308 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2010

The bear has sharply defined features, with its toes, muzzle, and mouth clearly delineated. A bow made of textured, aquamarine- colored ribbon2 attaches to the back of the bear. … Id. § 817.40(5). 20 Registration with the Copyright Office is permissive; it is not required before adding the © symbol on a work that qualifies for copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 408(a).

United States v. Merrill

513 F.3d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 17, 2008

“To establish prosecutorial misconduct, (1) the remarks must be improper, and (2) the remarks must prejudicially affect the substantial rights of the defendant.” … He qualified this assertion by stating that it was possible that he could not see an injection site due to a small needle or that the injection was in an uncommon area.

Marriott Corporation, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee v. Dasta Construction Company, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Appellant

26 F.3d 1057 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 1994

The giving of such notice shall not of itself establish the validity of the cause of delay or of the extension of time for completion. . … The delay provision in this case, however, provided for more than just immunity from money damages.

Huong L. Tran v. City of Holmes Beach

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 17, 2020

Those categories do not have precise and clearly marked boundaries — we said in Weiland that they are “rough” and “cannot be too finely drawn.” Id. at 1321. … That is a failing, the argument goes, because it affects how those officials must defend against the Hazens’ claims: in an individual-capacity claim a defendant may assert the defense of qualified immunity, see Tapley v.

United States v. Watson

669 F.2d 1374 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 1982

The rule clearly makes such a distinction. Again, we suggest that one way to avoid procedural errors is to establish a routine and follow it at every trial by means of a checklist. … No attempt was made in Salinas to resolve the two cases since the record demonstrated clearly that the defendants were prejudiced. 601 F.2d at 1285.

Alliant Tax Credit Fund XVI, LTD. v. Thomasville Community Housing, LLC

713 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 12, 2017

The court noted that the affidavit did not clearly address the Alliant plaintiffs’ citizenships on the date the suit was filed, simply asserted that various members were citizens of certain states without elaboration, and … Those conditions must be shown “by the testimony of the custodian or another qualified witness.” Id. 803(6)(D).

Michael J. Wappler v. Wayne Ivey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2024

immunity and summary judgment. … They argued that Wappler failed to present evidence to support the retaliation claims, and thus the of- ficers were entitled to summary judgment and qualified immunity.

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 2017 v. Brown

680 F.2d 722 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 1982

extent that, (1) statutes preclude judicial review, or (2) agency action is committed to agency discretion by law. 10 Public Law 96-107 contains no explicit preclusion of judicial review such that the first exception is clearly … Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 199 (5th Cir. 1971) when we stated: Traditional judicial trepidation over interfering with the military establishment has been strongly manifested in an unwillingness to second-guess judgments requiring

Macon County Investments v. David Warren

306 F. App'x 478 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2009

Plaintiffs clearly sought to challenge only the First and Second Amended Rules, and leave in place the 2003 Rules. 1 Plaintiffs also argue Sheriff Warren exceeded his rule-making authority in establishing … Accordingly, even if the district court grants Plaintiffs the injunctive relief they seek, Plaintiffs still do not qualify for a Class B Bingo License under the unchallenged 2003 Rules.

Amlong & Amlong, P.A. v. Denny's, Inc.

500 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 31, 2006

He went on, however, to adopt the erroneous view that a lack of subjective bad faith on the part of counsel could immunize their objectively bad conduct from sanctions. … Quite clearly, this is not an accurate description of the objective test.

United States v. Frank Excel Marley, III

621 F. App'x 936 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 9, 2015

The court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous. … According, the district court’s $996,605 loss calculation was not clearly erroneous.

Bellsouth Advertising & Publishing Corporation v. Donnelley Information Publishing, Inc.

999 F.2d 1436 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 2, 1993

Whatever original authorship is represented by these types of presentation choices was clearly not copied by Donnelley. … As a replacement for the established rules concerning summary judgment, the majority's reliance on its original fact-finding in a visual comparison of pages from the published directories, establishes a new and absurd rule

Tamika J. Austin v. The City of Montgomery

196 F. App'x 747 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2006

Austin’s disparate treatment claim In order to establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, Austin must demonstrate: (1) she belongs to a class protected under Title VII; (2) she was qualified for the … Austin was disciplined for conduct—excessive phone usage—that she admitted to and was clearly a violation of City policy.

James Olson v. Superior Pontiac-Gmc, Inc.

765 F.2d 1570 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 23, 1985

We think the Act clearly requires an employee to be paid the minimum wage for each hour worked during the pay period. See Mitchell v. … The district court found that the handbook was an interpretation of an agency of the United States and could be relied upon to establish the good faith defense. Id.