Case law

Hale Container v. Houston Sea

137 F.3d 1455 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 1998

In considering the vessels' "carrier" status, the district court noted the qualifications for a vessel, in rem, to qualify as a carrier, and found that the vessels met those requirements because a “master's" sailing of … The district court’s conclusion is not clearly erroneous.

William Milledge v. Rayonier, Incorporated

192 F. App'x 863 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 8, 2006

Grinnell Corp., 270 F.3d 1314, 1322 (11th Cir. 2001) (issues not clearly raised in initial briefs are considered abandoned). 2 entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” … Because the Walthours rely on circumstantial evidence to establish their claim, we test the sufficiency of that claim by applying the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Mirtha Marchena Chavez v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 2, 2022

It also argued that she failed to establish a nexus to a protected ground. … Here, Marchena has not established reversible error in the BIA’s denial of CAT relief.

United States v. Enrique Vinales

658 F. App'x 511 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 22, 2016

These observations independently established probable cause to believe that Vinales was storing heroin in his home. 2. … The PSI stated that the felonies qualified for the enhancement but did not specify under which clause they fell.

United States v. Irey

612 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 29, 2010

R. 36-2, IOP 7 (“The court may cite to them . . . to establish the . . . facts of the case.”). … It is well established that a finding of fact is clearly erroneous when “although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. . .

Trusted Net Media Holdings, LLC v. Morrison Agency, Inc.

525 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2008

Title 28 Congress established the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts in Title 28. Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 453, 124 S. Ct. 906, 914 (2004). … Thus, the statutory scheme clearly contemplates that relief will be immediately granted if no timely response is filed.

Jerry Baker v. Russell Corporation

372 F. App'x 917 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2010

situated employees outside his classification more favorably; and (4) he was qualified to do the job. … Baker’s contention that Wink, and not Williams, was the decision maker is without merit, as the record clearly shows that 7 it was Williams’s decision to terminate Baker’s employment

Windham Todd Pittman v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company

662 F. App'x 873 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 5, 2016

Again, these allegations do not establish an agreement between the private actors and Deputy Campbell. … Holley, 312 F.3d 1228, 1235 (11th Cir. 2002) (granting qualified immunity to officer where he accurately relayed information obtained from an informant and “there [was] nothing to suggest that he knew this information

Reginald Eric Sprowl v. Mercedes-Benz U.S. International, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

With regard to his discrimination claim, the district court found that Sprowl had shown that he was qualified for the promotions and thus established a prima facie case of discrimination on the basis of race, but that he … These arguments are clearly insufficient to show pretext.

Odalvis Fernandez v. United States

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2019

“[T]he burden of establishing [subject matter jurisdiction] rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. … Having found nothing in the text of section 375.251 that clearly shows the legislature sought to change Kleer’s interpretation of that statutory provision, we apply the holding of Kleer that an owner or lessee is immune

John Forrest Coon v. United States

607 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2015

Once a court has found that the defendant fails to establish either prong, it need not address the remaining prong. Id. at 697. … Thus, Alabama’s HFOA deems a party to have been “convicted” where the record clearly shows that the party was adjudicated guilty, even if the exact term was not used. Id. at 944.

Kenneth Howard v. DeKalb County

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

As for his claim that Shaw is irrelevant since it addressed the second prong of the qualified im- munity analysis -- the “clearly established law ground” -- we made a clear finding in it that “a reasonable … immunity analysis.

Stephanie Davis v. Infinity Insurance Co

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2022

Once the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the challenged employment practice serves a legitimate, nondiscriminatory busi- ness objective. Id. at 1275. … This is clearly supported by the fact that none of the PSSs in Bir- mingham who were retained after the second phase of the RIF spoke Spanish. Further, the written memorandum she received does not support her claim.

American Ass'n of People With Disabilities Ex Rel. O'Connor v. Harris

605 F.3d 1124 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 11, 2010

The City and the County are consolidated and are governed under the Charter of the Consolidated Government of the City of Jacksonville, which established a mayor-city council form of government. … There is no freestanding private right of action to enforce a statute’s implementing regulation 18 unless Congress has clearly indicated, expressly or impliedly, to the contrary

Mamberto Real v. Michael Perry

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2020

district court for consideration pursuant to a Fourth Amendment analysis.1 III. 1 We note that the district court did not consider Officer Perry’s claim of qualified … immunity, thus we do not consider it in this appeal. 8  Case: 19-13808 Date Filed: 04/21/2020 Page: 9 of 10 Real also argues on appeal that the

United States v. City of Hialeah

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 8, 1998

One such part requires the City to hire as police officers and firefighters thirty blacks from a pool of prior applicants who were qualified but had been denied employment. … The decree had provided that when a minority employee had the greatest seniority in a particular 14 position and was qualified for a promotional opportunity, the city was required

Duane Alsip v. Wal-Mart Stores East, LP

658 F. App'x 944 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 19, 2016

Alsip’s accident or whether the crosswalk stripes qualified as a high-traction area. … Therefore, Plaintiff has failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the crosswalk lines suffered from a “design, construction, or condition abnormality” or otherwise constituted an unreasonably

Glenn Michael O'Neal, Jr. v. City of Hiram

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2022

O’Neal, therefore, cannot establish that one of the magistrate judge’s alter- native grounds for striking portions of his declaration was errone- ous. … Smith, 89 F.3d 761, 765 (11th Cir. 1996) (af- firming, in qualified immunity context, district court’s finding that a plaintiff’s reports of corruption to law enforcement involved mat- ters of public concern).

United States v. Emilio Buonsignore

131 F. App'x 252 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 13, 2005

“Testimony about the weight, purity, dosages, and prices of cocaine clearly relates to knowledge beyond the ken of the average juror.” United States *256 v. Tapia-Ortiz, 23 F.3d 738, 741 (2d Cir. 1994). … The district court properly admitted the agent’s testimony under Rule 702, as his training and experience qualified him to testify as an expert in drug valuation.

Omar Santos v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 12, 2024

“The district court abuses its discretion if it ‘ap- plies the wrong legal standard, follows improper procedures in making its determination, bases its decision on clearly erroneous findings of fact … The Supreme Court has read the Privacy Act as requiring plaintiffs to “prove some actual damages to qualify for [the] minimum stat- utory award of $1,000.” Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 616 (2004).