Case law

Wallis v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service

391 F. App'x 826 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 11, 2010

The H&K partnership agreements provided that (1) eligibility for Schedule C payments was, at least in part, tied to a partner turning 68 years old; (2) Schedule C obligations could be funded through a qualified defined … benefit plan that would pay both Schedule C and monthly retirement benefits; (3) if a defined benefit plan was established, funds previously set aside to pay monthly retirement benefits under a discontinued retirement

United States v. Tomas Cisneros

426 F. App'x 692 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2011

The defendant bears the burden of establishing his minor role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. … The court also compared Cisneros to others in the offense, stating that there were participants with a more aggravated role, but finding that the record did not clearly establish that Cisneros was less culpable than most

Carl J. Isaacs and George Elder Dungee v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia State Prison, George Elder Dungee v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia State Prison, Carl J. Isaacs v. Ralph Kemp, Warden, Georgia State Prison

778 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 31, 1986

Harrington's testimony was clearly outside the rule because the testimony went only to establish the historical, objective fact that Ms. Harrington did attend a substantial portion of Carl Isaacs' trial. … Harrington's attendance at Carl Isaacs' trial would qualify as "extraneous prejudicial information," coming within the exception and justifying inquiry into such matters. See Mattox v.

United States v. Jeremiah Butler-Jackson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 5, 2022

The record establishes that these were juvenile offenses. … Ct. 1060, 1061 (2020) (“The text of Rule 52(b) does not immunize factual errors from plain-error review.”). Here, an error occurred, and the error was plain. Ramirez-Flores, 743 F.3d at 822.

Mize v. Hall

532 F.3d 1184 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 2, 2008

A fortiori, we cannot conclude that the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States … The issue of whether such a claim is cognizable in federal habeas corpus does not arise in this case, because even if such a claim were cognizable, Mize does not qualify.

Rozalia Williams v. Florida Atlantic University

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

The court also found that Brown was entitled to qualified immunity because he did not violate clearly established law. Last, the court rejected Williams’s claim for retaliation. … Once a prima facie case is established, the employer must produce a legitimate reason for the adverse employment action. Shannon v. BellSouth Telecomms., Inc., 292 F.3d 712, 715 (11th Cir. 2002).

Richard Rose v. Secretary, State of Georgia

107 F.4th 1272 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 10, 2024

We therefore concluded that the proposed remedy of single-district voting would undermine numerous, clearly identified state interests. Id. at 1546-47. … Second, the caselaw on Section 2 clearly anticipates that the statute extends equally to statewide bodies.

United States v. Damien Jesse Suhr

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 16, 2025

charge of attempting to entice a minor to engage in illegal sexual activity, Suhr made intent “a material issue which imposes a substantial burden on the government to prove intent, which it may prove by qualifying … Second, the video clearly depicted Suhr, and the government introduced evidence—in the form of statements by Suhr—that the other person in the video was a minor, so there was enough evidence for the jury

United States v. Jason Peraza

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 9, 2018

§ 812.13 does not qualify as a crime of violence because it does not require violent physical force. Because our precedent clearly establishes that prior convictions under Fla. … We have repeatedly held that § 812.13 qualifies as a crime of violence or its equivalent. In United States v.

United States v. Edward Malone Lawson

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2021

The court overruled the objection, noting that Defendant clearly had had at least three qualifying 1 Under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.2(e), certain sentences that were not imposed within 10–15 years of the defendant’s commencement … Specifically, he argues that the plea colloquy clearly established that he did not know he was violating the law because, when the court asked him if he knew that he was “violating the law” when he possessed a firearm,

Sylvia Fripp v. City of Atlanta, Georgia

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

York’s request, other evidence established that “Dr. York in fact did not order it.” Fripp does not dispute that finding on appeal. … Fripp filed objections to the R&R’s legal conclusions but did not clearly object to the magistrate judge’s construction of the rel- evant facts.

21 Employee Benefits Cas. 1625, Pens. Plan Guide (Cch) P 23936c, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 294 Harry L. Hunt v. Hawthorne Associates, Inc., Eastern Air Lines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots Trust Administrative Committee of the Eastern Airlines Variable Benefit Retirement Plan for Pilots

119 F.3d 888 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 5, 1997

For the district court's theory of liability to make sense, the TAC would necessarily have acted as de facto Plan administrator in Eastern's stead; as discussed above, this theory is inconsistent with the Plan and clearly … The statute clearly states that "[a]n employee benefit plan may sue or be sued under this subchapter as an entity." 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (d)(1). The statute then describes the mechanics of suing the plan. See id.

Osberto Francisco Ramos Vasquez v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2018

“Accordingly, we must follow the BIA’s determination that [Ramos-Vasquez’s proposed group is] not a social group under the INA unless the interpretation is unreasonable, i.e., arbitrary, capricious, or clearly contrary … Similarly, to qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that his “life or freedom would be threatened in [his] country because of [his] race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social

Andrews v. Lakeshore Rehabilitation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 15, 1998

We agree with the district court that these arguments also fail because the provisions for joinder of parties under Rules 19 and 21 are not immune from statutes of limitations. … P. 15(c).3 In holding that Plaintiff’s claims did not relate back under Rule 15(c), the district court made these findings of fact in its order: It is clearly evident that HealthSouth and LSSI did not receive notice

Lindo v. NCL (Bahamas), Ltd.

652 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 29, 2011

Citing Mitsubishi again, the Supreme Court added a qualifier to the language in Mitsubishi’s footnote 19. … We recognize that NCL’s brief on appeal argues that “Lindo has failed to establish that international arbitration will nullify or lessen his U.S. statutory claim,” “Lindo has failed to establish that the choice-of-law provision

Dr. David S. Muransky v. Godiva Chocolatier, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2020

Both identity theft and a material risk of identity theft plainly qualify as injuries under that statute and under this opinion. … Yet this case clearly turns on factual questions, as the majority seems to recognize.

IBT International, Inc. v. Northern (In Re International Administrative Services, Inc.)

408 F.3d 689 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 3, 2005

The evidence at trial established that Tedder and Givens orchestrated an elaborate operation that filtered money directly from IAS to IBT and SCSD. … We cannot find that conclusion clearly erroneous. Givens and Tedder perpetrated a fraud that can only be described as massive.

United States v. Jorge Ramon Newball May

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2021

While he concedes that the government’s expert witness was qualified to testify as to the results of the Ionscan testing, he asserts that the government failed to present evidence establishing that the testing procedure … Here, based on the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not clearly err in denying the defendants’ request for a minor-role reduction.

Kathleen N. Pedro v. Transunion LLC

868 F.3d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2017

To establish that TransUnion willfully failed to comply with section 1681e(b), Pedro must establish that TransUnion either knowingly or recklessly violated that section. Levine v. World Fin. … Clearly, it was. True, TransUnion reported that Pedro was only an authorized user on her parents’ account.

United States v. Dontavious M. Blake

868 F.3d 960 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 21, 2017

Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum Dated March 25, 2011, 670 F.3d 1335, 1346–49 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding that compelling a defendant to produce data protected by his password without providing constitutionally sufficient immunity … Considering the presumption of undue influence and Blake’s facilitation of T.H. and E.P.’s prohibited sexual conduct, the district court did not clearly err in finding that Blake unduly influenced T.H. and E.P.