Case law

United States v. Antonio E. Bascaro, Patrick M. Waldrop, Russell Hobson, Iii, Manuel Eric Villanueva, Gustavo J. Fernandez, Manuel W. James, United States of America, Cross-Appellee v. Manuel W. James, Cross-Appellant

742 F.2d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 1984

Professor Blakey argues that marijuana offenses do not qualify as racketeering activity under RICO, because Congress did not intend the phrase "narcotic or other dangerous drugs" to include marijuana offenses. … Bascaro through a pattern of racketeering activity; (2) that the evidence fails to establish that he committed two acts of racketeering which were connected, directly or indirectly, to the enterprise established by Manuel

Ben and Audrey Delancy, as Co-Administrators and on Behalf of Estate of Dr. Herman Delancy v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co.

947 F.2d 1536 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 6, 1991

As the foregoing discussion shows, Georgia law does not clearly require the insured to show that the insurer refused an offer within the policy limits to establish liability for tortious failure to settle, but it does not … Because Georgia law does not clearly support either the plaintiffs’ or St.

Richard Hamilton v. Secretary, DOC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 15, 2010

On September 25, 2000, Hamilton filed a pro se “Motion to Dismiss Incompetent/Ineffective Post Conviction Counsel and Strike Original/Amended Post Conviction Motion and Appoint Qualified Post Conviction Counsel.” … Those careful findings were entered after a full evidentiary hearing on the matter, and none of them are clearly erroneous. See Anderson v.

Ayanna Harrington v. Disney Regional Entertainment

276 F. App'x 863 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 19, 2007

First, an appellant must establish a prima facie case of racial discrimination. … To establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment, the appellants must show that (1) they were qualified members of a protected class, and (2) were subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast with similarly

31 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1707, 32 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 33,668 Gloria Holmes v. Continental Can Company

706 F.2d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 9, 1983

Subsection (b)(2) “by its terms, clearly envisions a class defined by the homogeneity and cohesion of its members’ grievances, rights and interests.” … Although the cases binding on this court clearly permit back pay as part of a class remedy so long as monetary relief is not the predominant relief sought, see Pettway III; Bing v.

Mca Television Limited v. Public Interest Corporation

171 F.3d 1265 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 28, 1999

As the Harms standard clearly states, however, an action "arises under" the Copyright Act where the complaint "is for a remedy expressly granted by the Act, e.g., a suit for infringement." Harms, 339 F.2d at 828 . … If it were possible for a defendant to violate an antitrust law, and yet produce no injury, he would be immune from private damage actions."). 51 In Loew's, the Supreme Court explained that tying arrangements "are an object

United States v. Demetrius Slydell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2022

10177 Date Filed: 02/03/2022 Page: 3 of 8 21-10177 Opinion of the Court 3 Based on his admitted drug-trafficking conduct and the de- termination that Slydell qualified … The defendant bears the burden of establish- ing his mitigating role in the offense by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Cruickshank, 837 F.3d 1182, 1192 (11th Cir. 2016).

Earl E. Graham v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

782 F.3d 1261 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 8, 2015

And in any event, Geier itself clearly places a thumb on the scale in favor of assuming compliance with the duties imposed through a successful state tort suit. 529 U.S. at 882, 120 S. … The subtext of Graham’s legal analysis seems to suggest that his claims are immune from preemption simply because the Engle litigation has managed to survive for twenty years and has now grown too-big-to-fail.

United States v. Basilio Amaury Bron, Jr.

709 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 18, 2017

In sum, Bron’s appeal is governed by the well-established rules set forth in McAllister, Scott, and Jordan. … As a result, Bron’s conviction for Florida felony battery now clearly qualifies as a crime of violence under the elements clause of § 4B1.2(a).

Ajit Bhogaita v. Altamonte Heights Condominium Assn., Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 27, 2014

The Association’s critical inquiries were whether Bhogaita’s PTSD amounted to a qualifying disability and whether Kane’s presence alleviated the effects of the disorder. Cf. … But establishing an accommodation’s necessity requires only proof the accommodation “address[es] the needs created by the handicap,” Schwarz, 544 F.3d at 1226, and the instruction given properly expressed that principle

Gold Coast Publications, Inc. v. Corrigan

42 F.3d 1336 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 30, 1994

We accept the district court’s findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous and review questions of law de novo. Id. … In addition, the definition of “equivalent” in Section 22-156(c) — “the same size, dimensions and style of the specified newsraek” — furnishes neutral criteria to guide the Public Works Director’s determination of what qualifies

United States v. Willie Lee Daniels

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 10, 2014

“As rulings on motions to suppress involve mixed questions of fact and law, the district court's factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous 2  Case … The facts giving rise to Daniel’s motion to suppress as established at the suppression hearing.

Advanced BodyCare Solutions v. Thione Int'l., Inc.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 25, 2010

Coston to the witness stand to establish the profits Thione would have earned had Advanced made the purchases the Agreement required it to make through the life of the Agreement. … If the parties intend the term to describe the sole remedy under the contract, this must be clearly expressed.” O.C.G.A. § 11-2-719 cmt. 2.

Rommell v. Automobile Racing Club Of America

964 F.2d 1090 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 6, 1992

Likewise, the fact that the manager of the Power Board knew that there was some construction going on at the plant was found to be inadequate to establish the knowledge required to establish wanton conduct. 40 Under Alabama … The breach of warranty claim against Induction was not filed until October 5, 1987, clearly more than four years after the action accrued.

Emily Adler, Individually on Behalf of Herself and All Persons Similarly Situated, Seth Finck, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Persons Similarly Situated v. Duval County School Board, Duval County Public School District, Emily Adler, Individually on Behalf of Herself and All Persons Similarly Situated, Seth Finck, Individually on Behalf of Himself and All Persons Similarly Situated v. Susan Boles, as Parent & Next Friend of Rebecca Boles, a Minor Child and on Behalf of All Public School Students Within the Duval County Public School District, Movants-Appellants

206 F.3d 1070 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 15, 2000

Clearly, the student vote satisfies the first part of this analysis: but for the policy, the student vote would not occur. … The majority also cites Justice O'Connor's concurrence in Lynch for the more general proposition that religious expression can solemnize public occasions, but Justice O'Connor's statement is qualified.

United States v. Hao Kuo Chi

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

Specifi- cally, any “issue that an appellant wants the Court to address should be specifically and clearly identified in the brief. . . . Other- wise, the issue . . . will be considered abandoned.” … To establish that the waiver was made knowingly and voluntarily, the government must show either that: (1) the district court specifically questioned the defendant about the waiver during the plea colloquy

Michael Horsley v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

713 F. App'x 937 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 15, 2017

As contained in § 2254(d)(1), the phrase “clearly established” refers to the holdings of the Supreme Court as of the time of the relevant state court decision. Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 71-72 (2003). … A state court decision represents an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law if the state court correctly identifies the governing legal rule from Supreme Court cases but unreasonably applies it to

Blankenship v. Hall

542 F.3d 1253 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2008

As to what constitutes clearly established Supreme Court law at the time of the state habeas decision, the question of AEDPA deference makes little difference: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. … Ct. 2052 (1984), was clearly established by 1991, and it remains the standard for evaluating ineffective assistance claims. Williams, 458 F.3d at 1238.

Patrick Hearns, Jr. v. MEJ Plumbing, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 2, 2025

On appeal, Appellants argue that the district court erred by holding that they failed to establish indi- vidual coverage. … They argue that they qualify because they were “engaged in commerce” under the FLSA. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 206(a), 207(a).

United States v. Willie Collon West

550 F. App'x 752 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 18, 2013

Career-offender status West next argues that the district court erred in finding that his prior state conviction for throwing a “deadly missile” into an occupied vehicle qualified as a predicate offense under the … Although West argues that the court failed to adequately credit him for having pleaded guilty rather than proceed to trial, the record clearly demonstrates that West received a three-level reduction to his offense level