Case law

United States v. Julio Rolon

445 F. App'x 314 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 28, 2011

conviction qualifies as a “crime of violence” under the sentencing guidelines. … Rolon’s Eighth Amendment claim clearly fails. See Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U.S. 263, 284–85, 100 S.

Michael Robert Teigen v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

677 F. App'x 519 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 24, 2017

“An impairment that manifests only some of [the] criteria, no matter how severely, does not qualify.” Sullivan v. Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 530 (11th Cir. 1990). … These examination results clearly show that Teigen does not meet or equal the requirement of having 20% or less visual field angle or a mean deviation of 22 or greater. See 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 § 2.03.

Federal Trade Commission v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2019

Immunity is once more obtained because the new plan was not specifically enjoined. And so a whole series of wrongs is perpetrated and a decree of enforcement goes for naught. … Finally, the defendants argue that “when experts reasonably disagree over whether representations are supported by competent and reliable scientific evidence, as they did here, the FTC has not carried its burden to establish

United States v. Brandon Erwin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 28, 2022

A court abuses its discretion by applying the wrong legal standard, following incorrect procedures, making clearly errone- ous factual findings, or clearly erring in its judgment. Harris, 989 F.3d at 911–12. … In- stead, it relied on the government’s argument that Erwin didn’t sufficiently allege a qualifying medical condition. Erwin has not shown or argued plain error. See Rosales-Mireles, 138 S.

Michael F. Powers v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

245 F. App'x 924 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2007

“It is well established that the FTCA is a specific waiver of the sovereign immunity of the United States and must be strictly construed.” Phillips v. United States, 260 F.3d 1316, 1318 (11th Cir. 2001). … The doctrine of prejudicial error applies “when a mistake of the administrative body is one that clearly had no bearing on the procedure used or the substance of decision reached.” U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S.

Teper v. Miller

82 F.3d 989 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 1996

Heaney, 995 F.2d 872, 875 (8th Cir.1993) (concluding that, "under every plausible reading of § 453," state law establishing system of public funding for U.S. … This language reflects the general principle established in the landmark case of Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v.

Brandon Mundt v. Sheriff, Okaloosa County

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2025

The district court held that Mundt had not established the prima facie case for his discrim- ination claim, because Mundt had failed to substantiate that he was a “qualified individual” under the ADA … Kirkwood, 707 F.3d 1276, 1284 (11th Cir. 2013) (“[W]here an accurate video recording completely and clearly contradicts a party’s testimony, that testimony becomes in- credible.

Kimberly Johnson v. Kellie Jennings

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 21, 2019

This deficiency, though surely problematic for anyone, was particularly difficult for Johnson given the twice-daily flushings that K.J. requires as well as the risk that cross-contamination poses for K.J.’s compromised immune … The lease spells out CLEARLY what procedures you must take if you would like for me to consider alterations to the premises.

Victor Gerard Guyton, II v. Commissioner of Social Security

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 10, 2026

Zebley, 493 U.S. 521, 531 (1990) (“For a claimant to qualify for benefits by showing that his unlisted impairment, or combination of impairments, is ‘equiv- alent’ to a listed impairment, he must present … USCA11 Case: 25-14160 Document: 26-1 Date Filed: 06/10/2026 Page: 9 of 11 25-14160 Opinion of the Court 9 To establish a disability based

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International

238 F.3d 1300 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 18, 2001

This clear statutory provision is at the heart of the RLA and is clearly within the province of the federal courts to enforce. … Inverse assignment involves Delta contacting available and qualified pilots, in inverse order of seniority, to operate a flight.

Manes Jean-Baptiste v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 26, 2024

The Court concluded that INA § 242(d)(1), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1), lacks the “clear statement” necessary to qualify as jurisdictional because (1) exhaustion re- quirements are ordinarily not jurisdictional … “An intervening Supreme Court decision abrogates our precedent only if the intervening decision is both clearly on point and clearly contrary to our earlier decision.” United States v.

Lance Spikes v. Schumacher Auto Group Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 24, 2024

Finally, the district court explained, the undisputed evidence showed Hollman hadn’t clearly agreed to be paid under the fluctuating workweek method. … But even if they did, and even if this qualified as an “exchange” under section 203(k), there’s no evidence in the record that the plaintiffs were primarily engaged in such activity, as is essential for the

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Adler

137 F.3d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 27, 1998

Trading on such information qualifies as a "deceptive device' under § 10(b)." … However, it is also well established that this inference of possession is rebuttable. In Freeman v.

Richard F. Thompson v. Relationserve Media, Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2010

The PSLRA does not grant a get-out-of-jail-free card—one nonfrivolous complaint does not immunize the earlier filing of frivolous complaints. See ATSI Commc’ns, Inc. v. … To qualify for the Rule 506 Regulation D exemption under federal law, Media could not have offered or sold securities by means of a general advertisement or solicitation.

Justin Daniel Osborne v. United States

559 F. App'x 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2014

Osborne succinctly states in his motion that it is his intention to “explain [his] cause for procedural default as it pertains to filing a Notice of Appeal, by clearly 4 … Osborne’s attorney] was in fact disbarred, and that this disbarment qualifies as attorney abandonment. As such, this abandonment caused the procedural default.”

Ying Jiang v. U.S. Attorney General

440 F. App'x 847 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2011

2  The BIA may not “engage in de novo review of findings of fact determined by an immigration judge,” but may review an immigration judge’s factual determinations only to assess whether those determinations were clearly … An applicant may prove a well-founded fear of future persecution, and thereby qualify for asylum, by demonstrating a subjectively genuine and objectively reasonable fear of persecution on account of a protected ground.

BMC Industries v. Barth Industries

160 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 18, 1998

BMC’s breach of contract count alleged that the second written amendment to the Contract established October 1987 as the deadline for Barth’s performance. … Even more significantly, the contractual language in that case clearly identified the contract as a transaction in services.

Loggerhead Turtle v. County Council of Volusia County

148 F.3d 1231 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 3, 1998

Volusia County argues that the Service “clearly anticipated” takes resulting from artificial beachfront lighting in the incidental take permit, just as the issuing agency in Ramsey “clearly anticipated” takes resulting from … Unlike the defendants in Strahan, Volusia County does not assert Tenth or Eleventh Amendment immunity. See 127 F.3d at 166-71 . Nor does Volusia County raise federalism concerns. . Those are just examples.

Anthony O. Wint, Jr. v. State of Florida Palm Beach Sheriff

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 21, 2021

Appellant’s brief argues that the district court erred by “addressing other issues after it determined that Oral Wint failed to demonstrate ‘next friend’ status” and that the district court’s later finding that Oral established … For instance, we have previously recognized that when a petitioner is not qualified as a “next friend,” he “may not participate in the unauthorized practice of law by preparing legal papers, filing petitions and briefs, and

Borrero v. United Healthcare of New York, Inc.

610 F.3d 1296 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 2010

We reasoned that claims involving only the amount owed based on the rate of payment might not implicate ERISA, but the claims that challenged coverage determinations under ERISA plans clearly implicated ERISA. Id. … In their briefs to this court, filed before we released our decision in Connecticut State Dental, Appellants argued that the medical associations qualified for associational standing. .