Case law

United States v. Alexis Carrazana

362 F. App'x 973 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 27, 2010

The court denied Carrazana’s objection to the two-level sophisticated means enhancement, stating that “certainly the conspiracy clearly qualifies.” … “To establish plain error, a defendant must show there is (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that affects substantial rights.” United States v. Moriarty, 429 F.3d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir. 2005).

Delong Equipment Company 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: 26 Of considerably more stature are appellant's three principal legal arguments, namely, that DeLong failed to establish "antitrust injury"; that DeLong failed to establish

Frederick v. Kirby Tankships, Inc.

205 F.3d 1277 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 8, 2000

Instead, the current statute, which 13 does not mention coasting voyages, establishes three designations for voyages: foreign, intercoastal, and coastwise. … Instead, Congress clearly intended the coastwise commerce exception to cover coastwise voyages engaged in commerce.

United States v. Antonio Eustupinan -Yesquan

152 F. App'x 900 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2005

The defendant has the burden of establishing his role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 939. … The district court did not clearly err in refusing to grant Eustupinan-Yesquan 5 a minor-role reduction.

Cedric Jones v. James McDonough

215 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2007

Where a claim was adjudicated on the merits in state court, federal courts may not grant habeas relief unless the state court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Moreover, the state trial court’s decision was not an objectively unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Kathryn E. Boyce Camara v. Brinker Int'l.

161 F. App'x 893 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2006

“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 erroneous.” Chi. Tribune Co. v. … ; (3) her employer treated similarly situated employees who are not members of her protected class more favorably, and (4) she was qualified for the job or benefit at issue.”

Lee v. Etowah County Board of Education

963 F.2d 1416 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1992

The plaintiffs in the present cases complain that the district court did not comply with the procedures this court established in Youngblood and Pitts . … March 10, 1988 order, averred that since 1984 it had sent recruiters to twelve different colleges and universities specifically for the purpose of interviewing minority teacher candidates but had been unable to attract qualified

George James Trepal v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 19, 2012

“We review de novo the district court’s decision about whether the state court acted contrary to clearly established federal law, unreasonably applied federal law, or made an unreasonable determination of fact.” … Either decision is entitled to deference under section 2254(d), and neither decision involves an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. A.

Hertz Corporation v. Alamo Rent-A-Car

16 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 1994

For these reasons, Alamo contends that Hertz's motion is untimely, and therefore, that the court's order of dismissal with prejudice is immune from Hertz's belated attack. 17 Because Hertz's challenge is a jurisdictional … The March 8 order dismissed only those parties that filed motions; the order also clearly indicated that it was issued in response to "several motions for final order of dismissal with prejudice."

Loranger v. Stierheim

3 F.3d 356 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 1993

This approach does not relieve district courts of the requirement to concisely but clearly articulate their reasons for selecting specific percentage reductions. See Gates v. … Although its balancing test has since been displaced by the lodestar formula, we have expressed our approval of district courts considering the Johnson factors in establishing a reasonable hourly rate.

Peters v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

367 F. App'x 69 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 24, 2010

She 3 maintains that she qualified for short-term disability benefits based on her nearsightedness, high blood pressure, and dizziness; that Hartford denied her claim without … This includes issues the appellant notes only in passing and does not clearly argue in her initial brief. Rowe v. Schreiber, 139 F.3d 1381, 1382 n.1 (11th Cir. 1998).

United States v. Joshua Blake Wise

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 11, 2023

The defendant’s medical condition qualifies as an extraordinary and compelling reason for compassionate release if he is “suffering from a serious physical or medical condition” that “substantially … Thus, the government is clearly right as a matter of law. Groendyke, 406 F.2d at 1161–62. III.

United States v. Charles Gilbert Hardy and Buddy Huffman, Jr.

855 F.2d 753 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 4, 1988

One who violates traffic laws is not, because he appears to be a drug courier, immunized from arrest. 1 28 Moreover, if Georgia wants to use its highway patrol for no other purpose than to apprehend drug couriers, that is … This finding is not clearly erroneous.

Debra Nevins v. DCH Health Systems

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 23, 2026

The policy provided: Exemption to immunization may be granted for medical con- traindications after Employee Health receives appropriate proof. … First, her 2014 EEOC charge, which was six years be- fore her termination, is clearly too remote to be considered. Thus, Nevins’ April 3, 2020, email is her only relevant protected activity.

Liberty Surplus Insurance Corporation v. Norfold Southern Railway Co.

684 F. App'x 788 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 4, 2017

The Contractor’s chemical program will be designed to promote low growing desirable species in order to establish desirable grasses that will compete with and limit tall growing undesirable species. … In both James and Zurich, one of the exclusion’s sub-provisions qualified the term “work” with the parenthetical “(other than service, maintenance or repairs).”

In Re MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation

644 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 28, 2011

The exercise of such jurisdiction is only appropriate in “rare circumstances” so only “limited factual scenarios” will qualify. Id. at 1379–80. … Circuit clearly stated that the issue of water supply authority in the RHA was not before it.

Heather Connelly v. Wellstar Health System, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 9, 2019

Under this framework, an employee bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that she (1) is disabled (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) experienced unlawful discrimination … And WellStar’s proffered reason for terminating Connelly is clearly one that could motivate a reasonable employer.

NOVA Information Systems, Inc. v. Greenwich Insurance

365 F.3d 996 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 9, 2004

The second press release stated that “Prior experience has shown that . . . credit card issuers may often provide speedier reimbursement to passengers than the claims process established to handle claims under bonds issued … Essentially, NOVA argues that it qualifies for equitable subrogation because it paid Greenwich's debt to Premier passengers.

Fagale S. Grant v. Elmore County Board of Education

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 19, 2023

Co., 739 F.3d 678, 680 (11th Cir. 2014) (stating an appellant must clearly and specifically identify in her brief any issue she wants the appellate court to address). … By con- trast, under a reduction-of-force analysis, a plaintiff may show that where the employer eliminated her position: (A) she belonged to a protected group; (B) she was qualified for the position

Christopher Scott Hughes v. Eleventh Judicial

377 F.3d 1258 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2004

Preemption of a state law regulating who is qualified to remain employed as a pilot, or the grounds for discharging a pilot, is very different from the state regulation here which says nothing about who may remain employed … The only example of such “subject matter” given in the preemption language relied upon by appellees specifies drug testing, which is clearly a requirement imposed upon airline employees.