Case law

Nitram, Inc. v. Industrial Risk

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 1998

Having established the source of our jurisdiction, we move to address the appeal on the merits. … issue must clearly offer no meritorious new arguments.

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.

DeLong Equipment Co. v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corp.

990 F.2d 1186 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 17, 1993

Indeed, two of the “special” media, known as P & W 6,000 and P & W 7,000, were clearly identified as stock media on Washington Mills’ price list. … Legal Arguments on the Sherman Antitrust Act Claims: Of considerably more stature are appellant’s three principal legal arguments, namely, that DeLong failed to establish “antitrust injury”; that DeLong failed to establish

Banks v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

647 F. App'x 910 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2016

In an earlier stage of this litigation, we concluded that Banks’s claim of ineffective assistance of state appointed post-conviction counsel was clearly time barred. See Banks, 592 F. App’x at 773. … Additionally, we effectively determined that Banks’s challenge to the constitutionality of Florida’s clemency process was futile because he “made no conceivable allegation” that would have established a claim for relief

United States v. Jo Ann Macrina

109 F.4th 1341 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 30, 2024

Instead, “Rule 106 permits introduction only of additional material that is relevant and is necessary to qualify, explain, or place into context the portion already introduced.” Id. … We defer to the discretion of the district court on “whether the probative value was outweighed by an unfair prejudice,” and we reverse the decision to admit the testimony “only if it were clearly

United States v. Fred Holton

571 F. App'x 794 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2014

Here, the district court erred in determining that Holton qualified for the ACCA enhancement because the government did not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Holton had three prior violent felony convictions … Scott, 263 F.3d 1270, 1273 (11th Cir. 2001) (holding that “the jurisdictional element of the statute, i.e., the requirement that the felon ‘possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition,’ immunizes § 922(g

United States v. Prosperi

201 F.3d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 28, 2000

Morgan CDs bore a sufficient resemblance to genuine CDs in order to qualify as “counterfeited” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 513. … The jury was instructed that they only had the two charges, that is, the tax charges and the counterfeit security charges, so I think they understand that clearly.

Thomas O'Neal v. American Shaman Franchise Systems, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 19, 2026

In any case, we see nothing “clearly erroneous” about the district court’s observation, given that the parties plainly offered “competing interpretations” of Graham’s involvement. … We also affirm the denial of the motion to dis- qualify the magistrate judge. AFFIRMED.

Ignacio Balaez Serra v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 15, 2023

The Attorney General has discretion to grant asylum to an appli- cant who qualifies as a “refugee.” 8 U.S.C. § 1158(b)(1). … The fact that he qualified the number indicates that he was estimating. After Serra provided an estimate, the IJ let the approximation stand.

United States v. Samuel Gray

260 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2001

Unlike the federal arson statute, the Hobbs Act has no qualifying language indicating that Congress intended to limit the Act’s jurisdictional reach. … Instead, he asserts that § 3559(c)(3)(A) violates his Due Process rights by requiring him to prove a matter (and prove it clearly and convincingly) that the Government should be obliged to prove.

Edgar Alexander Pirela Pirela v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 6, 2018

To qualify for asylum, an applicant must establish “a well-founded fear that his or her political opinion (or other statutorily listed factor) will cause harm or suffering that rises to the level of persecution.” … The BIA’s opinion clearly upheld the IJ’s credibility determination and gave reasons for doing so.

American Druggists Ins. Co., Inc., and John H. Brown v. Joseph I. Bogart, Clerk of the Court, Southern District of Florida

707 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 20, 1983

ADIC first challenges the practice of the Southern District as inconsistent with the procedures established by federal statutes governing corporate sureties. … No bond shall be approved unless the surety thereon appears to be qualified. (emphasis supplied).

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.

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).

Paramijit S. Virdi v. DeKalb Co. School District

135 F. App'x 262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 13, 2005

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on August 14, 2000, holding that Virdi had presented insufficient evidence of discrimination, that no official policy discriminated against him, and that Superintendent Hallford was immune … Thus, Virdi has failed to establish a causal connection between the unconstitutional aspect of the MVP and his alleged injury – i.e., the failure to obtain architectural work with the District.

United States v. Jeremy Spencer

685 F. App'x 863 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 18, 2017

The district court did not clearly err in finding that the firearms depicted in the cell-phone photos were authentic. … Here, the district court did not clearly err in applying the four-level enhancement under § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B).

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

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 1, 2013

In admitting expert testimony, trial courts must consider whether: (1) the expert is qualified to testify competently regarding the matters he intends to address; (2) the methodology by which the expert … But hornbook law on contracts establishes that this conclusion is in direct conflict with the factual findings about waiver and estoppel: “There are few principles of contract law better established, or more uniformly

Ledford v. Peeples

605 F.3d 871 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2010

O’Dell admitted that DynaVision’s principals were not qualified to run the company. … O’DELL: Not without qualified people in that field, no. HORST: The Dynavision people were not qualified people in that field? O’DELL: No, they weren’t.

United States v. Samuel Gray

260 F.3d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 7, 2001

In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied upon the language of § 844(i), which contains the qualifying words "used in" interstate or foreign commerce. … Unlike the federal arson statute, the Hobbs Act has no qualifying language indicating that Congress intended to limit the Act's jurisdictional reach.

United States v. Tomeny

144 F.3d 749 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 1998

In the application, Tomeny certified that the vessel had met the qualifying threshold of 5000 pounds in both 1990 and 1992, even though he knew that the vessel had not met the threshold in 1990. … Preemption of a criminal provision, however, occurs only where Congress “clearly intended that one statute supplant another; the fact that one statute is more specific than the other is not sufficient.”