Case law

Kirby Mohammed v. Jacksonville Hospitalists, P.A.

712 F. App'x 872 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 18, 2017

Nor does Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant’s failure to clearly and consistently articulate its reasons for Plaintiff’s termination show pretext. … Plaintiff must rebut each of Defendant’s stated reasons for termination before she can show pretext, and she has clearly failed to do so.

United States v. Taparrish Shakane Vails

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 13, 2023

Vails argues on appeal that the district court clearly erred in denying his request for a minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2. … Moreover, Vails cannot point to a broader criminal scheme and assert that he was a minor participant in that scheme to qualify for the reduction.

Cynthia Diane Yelling v. St. Vincent's Health System

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2023

Yelling has met her burden as to the subjective showing; she presented evidence clearly showing she subjectively perceived her coworkers’ conduct as severe or pervasive. … The district court held that the first three did not qualify as “adverse employ- ment actions.” See Monaghan v.

United States v. Sydney Samuel Hamilton

154 F. App'x 775 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2005

Other than this brief comment, nothing in the record tells us why the court concluded that the appellant did not qualify for a § 5C1.2 reduction. … Furthermore, the evidence in the record does not clearly establish that he did not qualify. . .

United States v. Masnik Sainmelus

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 4, 2019

Under this standard, the government need not show that the defendant was under the influence of a controlled substance at the time of his arrest, but only that he qualified as an unlawful user “during the same time period … In Perez, we concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish Perez’s constructive possession of firearms placed in his car to be transported to a fictional cocaine stash house he and his co-conspirators intended

Baby Buddies, Inc. v. Toys "R" Us, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 22, 2010

The bear has sharply defined features, with its toes, muzzle, and mouth clearly delineated. A bow made of textured, aquamarine- colored ribbon2 attaches to the back of the bear. … Id. § 817.40(5). 20 Registration with the Copyright Office is permissive; it is not required before adding the © symbol on a work that qualifies for copyright protection. See 17 U.S.C. § 408(a).

Melissa Coleman v. Redmond Park Hospital, LLC

589 F. App'x 436 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2014

In Smith, we held that a former employee who alleges that his former employer refused to rehire him based on his past use of FMLA leave qualifies as an “employee” under the enforcement provision of the FMLA. … In his report and recommendation, the magistrate judge clearly acknowledged that there was a factual dispute regarding the content of the voicemail that Redmond alleged was unprofessional.

Angela Ruckh v. Salus Rehabilitation, LLC

963 F.3d 1089 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 25, 2020

Bradley explained that in each week used to set the payment level, the defendants reported providing the patient with 720 minutes of therapy—the minimum amount needed to qualify for the Ultra High level. … This evidence, without more, is insufficient to establish materiality.

Amanda Kondrat'yev v. City of Pensacola, Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 7, 2018

Rather, the Court stressed—using broad terms that apply every bit as clearly here as they did there—Marsh stands for the proposition that “the Establishment Clause must be interpreted ‘by reference to historical practices … Pretty clearly and strongly, it seems to me.

Margaret M. Woods v. Lockheed Martin Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 2022

Under this frame- work, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrim- ination. Id. … Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding that “an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3”).

United States v. Jamerson Vashon Smalls

397 F. App'x 606 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2010

The guideline commentary further provides that the defendant will qualify for the enhancement if he was the organizer or leader “of one or more other participants.” U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, comment. … We thus concluded that the government had not sufficiently established facts to support the application of the leadership-role enhancement. Id. at 1030.

United States v. Liana Lee Lopez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 16, 2011

Regarding the second category of prejudice, the Supreme Court in Zafiro “did not clearly explain what it meant by a jury being prevented from ‘making a reliable judgment’” even with limiting instructions. … In Buchanan the Supreme Court held that, even assuming death-qualified juries are conviction prone, there is no constitutional right to have guilt determined by a jury that has not been death- qualified.

Ledford v. Peeples

630 F.3d 1345 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 6, 2010

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. … If, however, the law governing the plaintiff’s claim was well-settled, and clearly precluded the claim, the ballpark would be very small.

United States v. Samuel Valiant Shannahan, III

135 F. App'x 253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2005

To prevail under a plain error standard, the appellant must establish: (1) an error; (2) that the error is plain; and (3) that the plain error affected substantial rights. United States v. … Based on these standards, the district court did not clearly err by denying Shannahan the § 3E1.1 reduction.

Mariela Rodriguez-Montenegro v. U.S. Attorney General

452 F. App'x 896 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 11, 2012

In order to qualify for asylum, an applicant must establish past persecution, or a well-founded fear of future persecution, on account of a statutorily enumerated factor. 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(b); see also 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)( … Substantial evidence supports the IJ’s finding that a reasonable fear was not established.

Odie Gray v. Deloitte LLP

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 11, 2021

argued, in reply, that he established pretext. … Sampson, 518 F.3d 870, 874 (11th Cir. 2008) (stating although we liberally construe the pleadings of pro se litigants, issues that a pro se litigant has not clearly raised on appeal are still deemed abandoned and we will

Sentinel Communications Company v. Watts

936 F.2d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 1991

The System is clearly one of limited access that cannot be altered without prior federal approval; automotive service stations, for example, as well as other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users, may … officials in their official capacities are deemed to be suits against the state, the district court found that Sentinel's damages claim was against the State of Florida, and that Florida has not waived its eleventh amendment immunity

Democratic Executive Committee of Florida v. Laurel M. Lee

915 F.3d 1312 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 15, 2019

The District Court had no difficulty concluding that Plaintiffs had established the second factor, irreparable injury. … The District Court had no difficulty concluding that Plaintiffs had established the third factor as well.

United States v. Nemias Cintora-Gonzalez

569 F. App'x 849 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 24, 2014

211-month total sentence based on a low-end guideline sentence of 151 months because Armando-Reyes was responsible for a lesser amount of drugs, he did not maintain the premises for drug distribution, and he did not qualify … As such, the government had to rely on the calls to establish the scope of the conspiracy.

Eric Wendell Holloman v. Jacksonville Housing Auth

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 30, 2007

To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege that (1) he is a “qualified individual with a disability,” (2) he was “excluded from participation in or . . denied the benefit of the services, programs … successful § 1985(3) conspiracy claim, a plaintiff must allege: (1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities