Case law

United States v. Graylan Johnson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2024

We conclude that he has not established plain error. … We held that the challenge was foreclosed by Rozier, which “interpreted Heller as limiting the [Second Amendment] right to law-abiding and qualified individuals, and as clearly excluding fel- ons from

United States v. Henock Colimon, Jr.

429 F. App'x 821 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 1, 2011

“The four-prong test to establish plain error is: (1) there must have been an error; (2) the error must have been plain; (3) the error must have seriously affected substantial rights; and (4) the error must have seriously … Furthermore, because the plea agreement clearly did not promise that a substantial-assistance motion would be filed, and nothing in the record suggests that the parties intended otherwise, the government did not breach

Jorge Alberto Martinez-Rivera v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 8, 2021

the requisite hardship to his qualifying relatives (Respondent’s Br.at 8–9). … Accordingly, considering the totality of the circumstances presented, we are not persuaded the respondent has established that, upon his removal, his qualifying relatives would suffer exceptional and extremely

United States v. Fort

638 F.3d 1334 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2011

For consulting partners who qualified as accredited investors under SEC rules, such as Fort, the consulting partner agreed to terminate his or her interest in E&Y, and in exchange, received a distribution of Cap Gemini … Rather, poor performance clearly refers to unsatisfactory performance.

United States v. David Lynn Roberson

998 F.3d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 27, 2021

Prior to the events at issue, the EPA established the 35th Avenue site and found the Walter Coke Company responsible for the pollution. … See Keen, 676 F.3d at 990 (concluding “that to qualify as an agent of an entity, an individual need only be authorized to act on behalf of that entity”).

United Transportation Union v. Lewis

699 F.2d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 1983

It stated: 24 25 [T]he legislation will improve the FRA's ability to act in an emergency, deploy its resources more effectively, and recruit qualified inspectors. … The Secretary must bring information establishing a violation of section 62(a)(3) to the attention of the U.S. attorney. 26 38 If conditions in a specific accommodation are so dangerous, so hazardous or life threatening,

LABMD, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

891 F.3d 1286 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2018

What is involved here is the FTC’s establishment of an unfair act or practice through litigation. … Ct. 1816, 1823 (1999) (“The court/agency [substantial-evidence] standard, as we have said, is somewhat less strict than the court/court [clearly erroneous] standard.

Kaye v. Blue Bell Creameries, Inc. (In Re BFW Liquidation, LLC)

899 F.3d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 14, 2018

In 1970, Congress established the Commission on the Bankruptcy Laws of the United States (“the Commission”) to “study, analyze, evaluate, and recommend changes to the [Bankruptcy Act of 1898].” … Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 257 (2012) (“The new text is the law, and where it clearly makes a change, that governs.

White v. State of Alabama

74 F.3d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 1996

If a justice did not so qualify, his or her seat would become a "remedial" seat and would be filled through the nominating process, with the appointee serving a full six-year term. … In the event of such violation, the fact that the decree had been affirmed would not render it "immune from attack."

Laura Wheale v. Polk County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 4, 2022

Filed: 10/04/2022 Page: 5 of 9 21-13676 Opinion of the Court 5 State also argued that, because it was “not a person within the meaning of § 1983,” the doctrine of sovereign immunity … determined that the Counties were not the Judge’s employer and could not be responsible for her coworkers, that the County lacked control over officials who mis- treated the Judge, and that the Judge alleged no facts to establish

Tracey Cunningham v. Fulton County, Georgia

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 2019

employees’ contract claims survived the defendants’ initial motion to dismiss because the district court concluded that the Georgia Constitution waives 3 The employees’ arguments would fail on the merits even if they had clearly … And as to the employees’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief, we agree with the district court that the employees did not establish that sovereign immunity had been waived as to these claims and, in any event, “the

United States v. Darcy Piloto

562 F. App'x 907 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 10, 2014

After his motion to appoint counsel was denied, Piloto waived his right to the assistance of counsel through his repeated and adamant rejection of his existing appointed counsel, even after the court clearly explained that … The most closely analogous offense to the fleeing-by-boat statute that we have considered to determine whether it qualifies for enhancement under § 924(e) is vehicular flight. In Sykes v.

37 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1232, 36 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 35,166 Michaele Cowart Nord, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee, Cross-Appellant v. United States Steel Corporation, Cross-Appellee

758 F.2d 1462 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 25, 1985

Unit A 1981): 32 Once a plaintiff in a Title VII case has established a prima facie case and established what he or she contends to be the damages resulting from the discriminatory acts of the employer, the burden of producing … Rather than continue this fruitless search she sought to establish secure future employment. Cf. Brady v.

Derrick Anthony DeBruce v. Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 15, 2014

To determine whether a state court decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law, we are mindful that “an unreasonable application of federal law is different from an incorrect application … That approach ignores that “it is not ‘an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law’ for a state court to decline to apply a specific legal rule that has not been squarely established by [the Supreme]

Rosa H. Prince v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 2, 2014

Finally, once a claimant establishes that he cannot perform his past relevant work due to some severe impairment, the burden shifts to the Commissioner to show that significant numbers of jobs exist in the national economy … “A clearly articulated credibility finding with substantial supporting evidence in the record will not be disturbed by a reviewing court.” Foote v.

Skanska USA Civil Southeast, Inc. and Skanska USA v. Bagelheads, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 2, 2023

It is about limitation of liability, not immunity from liability or the exclusivity of the federal forum. Lake Tankers, 354 U.S. at 152–53. … And “even a clearly erroneous evidentiary ruling will be affirmed if harmless.” Id. (quotation omitted).

United States v. Jesus Tijerina Garza

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 16, 2022

“A district court abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, follows improper procedures in making the determination, or makes findings of fact that are clearly erro- neous.” … We need not address whether the statutory sentencing fac- tors weighed in favor of reducing Garza’s sentence because we can affirm on the alternative ground that he failed to establish an ex- traordinary and compelling reason

Hangmin Cai v. U.S. Attorney General

573 F. App'x 846 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2014

BIA found that the IJ’s conclusion that Cai did not face a reasonable possibility of forced sterilization, excessive fines, or other persecution upon returning to China for violating China’s one child policy was not clearly … To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that her life or freedom would be threatened in her country of origin on account of a statutorily protected ground.

Gary R. Cunningham v. Fleetwood Homes of GA

253 F.3d 611 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 6, 2001

The detailed requirements may be found at 16 C.F.R. § 703.1-8, and include among other things, the duties of the warrantor, who can qualify as a member of a dispute resolution panel, how the process must be conducted, and … The disclosure requirements established by the FTC pursuant to Magnuson- Moss are codified at 16 C.F.R. § 701.3, and obligate warrantors to “clearly and conspicuously disclose [warranty terms] in a single document in simple

Memorial Hospital, Cross-Appellees v. Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Cross-Appellant

706 F.2d 1130 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 1983

Plaintiffs, sixty-one Florida general acute care hospitals and one hospital in the District of Columbia, are qualified providers of medical services under the Medicare provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § … Section 106 of this Act clearly disallows reimbursement, contrary to the Presbyterian Hospital holding.