Case law

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. Moghadam

175 F.3d 1269 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 19, 1999

The URAA also enacted a similar provision establishing civil liability for the same conduct (but omitting the commercial advantage or private financial gain requirement). … In fact, since a sound recording qualifies as a "Writing" in the constitutional sense, Shaab v.

Fredi Eliseo Cux-Lopez v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 3, 2023

Because the INA does not clearly define the phrase “particular so- cial group,” we have deferred to the BIA’s interpretation as set forth in its unpublished, three-member decisions. … The noncitizen bears the burden of establishing that she is entitled to asylum, which requires the noncitizen to establish, with specific and credible evidence, that: (1) she suffered past persecu-

United States v. Wondera Eason

579 F. App'x 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2014

the admission of Thoen’s testimony that his drug activity did not impair his ability to understand what was going on at HCS on the bases that it calls for a legal conclusion and that Thoen, as a lay witness, was not qualified … § 2B1.1(b)(10)(C). 8 Neither of these enhancements was clearly erroneous.

Alfred A. Forzley v. Avco Corporation Electronics Division, a Delaware Corp., Alfred A. Forzley, Cross-Appellant v. Avco Corporation Electronics Division, a Delaware Corp., Cross-Appellee

826 F.2d 974 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 8, 1987

Thus, Forzley was absent from work for a continuous period of more than 150 days before being given a qualified release to return to work. AVCO terminated the agreement on September 3, 1983. … If so, this claim clearly would be time-barred because Forzley last worked in Saudi Arabia on February 10, 1983, and his original complaint was filed more than one year from that date.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Verex Assurance, Inc.

3 F.3d 391 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 1, 1993

Imputation to FDIC FDIC claims that even if Sunrise is responsible for the misrepresentations contained in the loan documents, these false statements cannot be imputed to FDIC under established federal common law. … Verex alleges that the Florida legislature clearly stated that, by enacting Chapter 635, it only intended to impose “additional limitations on companies writing mortgage guaranty insurance in addition to the provisions of

Terry Lee Freeze v. Secretary Department of Children and Families

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

The magistrate judge explained that the state and its agencies were generally immune from suit in federal court for money damages, Freeze could not challenge his confinement (as opposed to the conditions of confinement … Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996) (to establish a violation of the right of access to the courts, an inmate must show that alleged deficiencies in the law library caused 2 See, e.g., Lane v. Cent. Alabama Cmty.

United States v. Jeffery Charles Nicoll, Jr.

400 F. App'x 468 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 14, 2010

The Court in Heller, however, qualified that the right to bear arms,“[l]ike most rights, . . . is not unlimited.” Id. at ___, 128 S. Ct. at 2816. … Likewise, the district court did not clearly err in concluding that Nicoll’s possession of a sawed-off shotgun was “in connection with” the marijuana manufacturing.

Leonilo Guzman-Hernandez v. U.S. Attorney General

611 F. App'x 956 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 29, 2015

To qualify for withholding of removal, an applicant must establish that his life or freedom would be threatened in his country of origin on account of the alien’s race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular … While Petitioner did not specifically use the phrase “cumulative effect” in his appellate brief to the BIA, that brief clearly reflects that Petitioner argued to the BIA that he established past persecution in light of the

United States v. Odom

252 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 31, 2001

Ct. 1904 (2000), that the qualifying words “used in” signaled that Congress did not invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause. Id. at 1909-10. … The Government has failed to set forth sufficient evidence establishing that St.

Fredy Andablo Gutierrez v. U.S. Attorney General

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

The BIA concluded that (1) the IJ’s factual finding that the Petitioners failed to demonstrate a ten-year continuous physical presence was not clearly erroneous, and (2) the IJ applied the correct legal standard in concluding … We need not address Petitioners’ challenges to the determination of their hardship claim, as Petitioners do not qualify for relief in any event. See INS v. Bagamasbad, 429 U.S. 24, 25, 97 S.

Jose Maiz v. Amir Virani

253 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2001

In this case, by contrast, proximate cause was established. … Defendants argue that Silberman was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding Plaintiffs’ lost value damages. This argument is not convincing.

United States v. Wyatt Henderson

211 F. App'x 919 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 22, 2006

In Harris, the district court clearly violated Rule 32 by failing to indicate that the record allowed it to sentence the defendant without a PSI. Id. at 824. … A party challenging a sentence bears the burden of establishing that the sentence is unreasonable. Talley, 431 F.3d at 788.

Andrew Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

See Lowery, 483 F.3d at 1213 n.63 (“Under either paragraph, the documents received by the defendant must contain an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.”). … The Lowery opinion relies on that language to support its conclusion that removal requires that the defendant has received—not generated or compiled—a document containing an “an unambiguous statement that clearly establishes

United States v. Surrodrick McCobb

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 17, 2024

4 of 6 4 Opinion of the Court 20-12263 As relevant here, summary disposition is appropriate where “the position of one of the parties is clearly … McCobb argues that the constitutional error here was not harmless because the evidence in the record does not establish be- yond a reasonable doubt that he committed predicate offenses on three different

Jose Maiz v. Amir Virani

253 F.3d 641 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 8, 2001

In this case, by contrast, proximate cause was established. … Defendants argue that Silberman was not qualified to offer an opinion regarding Plaintiffs' lost value damages. This argument is not convincing.

Doyle v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston

542 F.3d 1352 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 7, 2008

While Doyle was receiving STD benefits, Liberty Life obtained her medical records to determine whether she would qualify for LTD benefits, for which she had 2 applied, after her … In order to succeed on its summary judgment motion, Liberty Life, as the moving party, bore the burden of establishing that there existed no genuine issue of material fact and that it was entitled to judgment as a matter

Reyna Nicolas Andres v. U.S. Attorney General

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

“A party must specifically and clearly identify a claim in its brief, for instance by devoting a discrete section of its argument to that claim; otherwise, it will be deemed abandoned and its merits will not be addressed … Generally, if a petitioner cannot meet the standard of proof for asylum, she will not qualify for withholding of removal. Id.

United States v. Viramontes

419 F. App'x 938 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 28, 2011

The extensive training and experience of both officers was a sufficient basis for the court to conclude that they were qualified to render expert opinions. … The record clearly shows that Viramontes did not testify or proffer any evidence as to his good character at trial.

United States v. Jeremiah Flores

562 F. App'x 794 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 2, 2014

The post-imposition question here signaled clearly and obviously that the parties were invited to object. The question in Campbell—“Is there anything further?” … (noting that the government may establish the minimal nexus “by demonstrating that the firearm . . . traveled in interstate commerce[,] [and] [h]ere, the government established that the firearms . . . were manufactured