Case law

MCA Television v. Public Interest

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 6, 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.”).

Ingrida Mockeviciene v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 12, 2007

BIA Decision 3 The IJ noted that if Mockeviciene does not qualify under the asylum standard, she cannot qualify under the more difficult standard for withholding of removal. … her burden of proof for asylum and therefore could not qualify for withholding of removal or protection under the CAT.

Tracey L. Tomczyk v. Jocks & Jills Restaurants

198 F. App'x 804 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

To establish her claim, Tomczyk’s evidence must also establish that the harassment was severe or pervasive. … In regard to Tomczyk’s disparate treatment racial discrimination claim, we must determine whether her termination, which clearly qualifies as an adverse employment action, was the result of racial discrimination or instead

Andres Olivera v. U.S. Attorney General

305 F. App'x 551 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 29, 2008

On appeal, Olivera argues that the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was clearly erroneous, and further asserts that he established past persecution, and a well-founded fear of future persecution so as to qualify him

Castillo, etc. v. US Atty. General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2011

On appeal, Romero-Castillo argues that the record does not clearly show that she or Lopez-Rubiano either admitted to the factual allegations contained in the Notices to Appear or conceded their removability, as the IJ found … An alien may qualify for asylum by presenting credible evidence showing either (1) past persecution on account of her political opinion or any other protected ground, or (2) a well-founded fear that her political opinion

United States v. Antonio Louis

336 F. App'x 866 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 30, 2009

Louis does not challenge that his drug-trafficking conviction qualifies as an “aggravated felony” for the purposes of § 1326(b)(2). … Louis fails to establish that the district court’s weighing of those factors was clearly erroneous.

Mowafak Shahla v. U.S. Attorney General

648 F. App'x 812 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 19, 2016

Finally, the BIA concluded that the IJ did not clearly err in determining that Petitioner had not met his burden of establishing that it was more likely than not that he would be tortured by or at the acquiescence of a … Additionally, the BIA noted that the IJ acknowledged that the evidence showed a pattern of human rights abuses, but concluded that this did not establish that Petitioner would more likely than not suffer torture by or at

United States v. Gerard M DiLeo

625 F. App'x 464 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 1, 2015

He established a patient referral program where patients could earn a free visit if they referred five patients to Global Pain. … Once a conspiracy is established, and an individual is linked to that conspiracy, an overt act committed by any conspirator is sufficient. United States v.

SA Palm Beach, LLC v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

32 F.4th 1347 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 2022

Like many other similar establishments, it was subject to state and local closure orders. See id. at ¶ 34. … Fla. 2021) (“[T]he key difference between the Plaintiff’s loss of use theory and something clearly covered—like a hurricane—is that the property did not change. The world around it did.

Ronnie Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit

181 F. App'x 865 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 22, 2006

A preliminary injunction, however, “is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” … subsection at issue in this case—are “(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protections of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities

Securities & Exchange Commission, Jose Pablo Urbina Solera v. Pension Fund of America, L.C.

396 F. App'x 577 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Sep 15, 2010

Chierico, 206 F.3d 1378, 1383 (11th Cir. 2000), and “we review findings of fact arising out of contempt proceedings under the clearly erroneous standard.” Doe v. Bush, 261 F.3d 1037, 1047 (11th Cir. 2001). … damages ultimately awarded in” Solera’s Costa Rican civil action against Ruiz, and that “the Receiver’s interests are [therefore] aligned with [Ruiz’s], and are implicated to such an extent that” the Receiver and Ruiz qualify

Geisel Geobany Zapata-Matute v. U.S. Attorney General

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 28, 2019

Zapata-Matute] did not establish persecution on account of membership in a particular social group.” … We likewise review de novo whether “an asserted group qualifies as a ‘particular social group’ under the INA,” Gonzales v. U.S.

Cedrick S. Barriner v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

604 F. App'x 801 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 4, 2015

The trial court determined that, with those two convictions, Barriner qualified as a habitual felony offender under Florida Statute section 775.084(1)(a). … First, it asserted that the state court had unreasonably applied clearly established federal law by using a prejudice standard that was more demanding than Strickland’s. See id. § 2254(d)(1).

United States v. Maurice Luclare Williams

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

The government also relied on text messages and a recorded jailhouse phone call to establish that the drugs and gun found in the bag belonged to Williams. … “An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court applies an incorrect legal standard or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” Id. III.

Sound Around, Inc. v. Hialeah Last Mile Fund VII, LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 10, 2025

The district court found that Rojas, one of HLM’s members, was a citizen of New York, and this determi- nation was not clearly erroneous. … It is true that “parties have a qualified right to jurisdictional discovery,” and a dis- trict court “abuses its discretion if it completely denies a party ju- risdictional discovery.”

United States v. Oleksii Tsurkan

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2018

reasonable doubt; (2) Congress has no constitutional authority to punish offenses on the high seas without a nexus to the United States; and (3) the government’s exercise of jurisdiction over Defendants without first establishing … “Under the clearly erroneous standard, we must affirm the district court unless review of the entire record leaves us with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v.

United States v. Yaman Sencan

629 F. App'x 884 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 23, 2015

A determination that a defendant is not qualified for 8 Under the rule first announced in Brady v. … The district court did not clearly err by denying a minor role reduction.

Andrew Horace v. ARIA

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 19, 2024

Horace was fully qualified for his position and was praised by ARIA’s hiring manager and the lead technician for his work performance. … The Supreme Court has held that an employment discrimination plaintiff need not plead specific facts establishing a prima facie case under the burden-shifting framework established in McDonnell Douglas

United States v. Gustavo Dominguez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 31, 2011

This omission does not establish that Congress intended to eliminate criminal intent. … The severity of the penalties authorized under § 1324(a)(2)(B) clearly indicates that Congress intended a mens rea element.

United States v. Bladimiro Parra-Mercado

192 F. App'x 886 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 9, 2006

Parra posits that the evidence established that Angel represented Orlando. … The district court did not clearly err by applying a four-level enhancement based on Parra’s role as an organizer or leader.