Case law

Robert Dale Conklin v. Derrick Schofield

366 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 21, 2004

Over a period of time, the two established an intimate sexual relationship. On the night of Monday, March 26, 1984, Crooks went to Conklin’s apartment. … When the state habeas court has held an evidentiary hearing, as in this case, the findings of fact by the state court are generally presumed to be correct unless clearly erroneous. See Thompson v.

Jennifer Mann-Mackey v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 12, 2023

The RRB “shall establish and promul- gate rules and regulations to provide for the adjustment of all con- troversial matters arising in the administration of this subchapter.” … On May 31, 2016, Mann-Mackey appealed that decision, ar- guing that, according to Form RB-9, her self-employment and own- ership of a registered LLC qualified as an LPE exception.

Arthur Rutenberg Homes, Inc. v. Jewel Homes, LLC

655 F. App'x 807 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 26, 2016

However, Harvester and Warrick, not binding on this court in any circumstance, are clearly distinguishable. … “[F]loor plans, like any work, receive copyright protection only to the extent that they qualify as ‘original works of authorship.’” Id. (quoting 17 U.S.C. § 102(a)).

Harris v. Ivax Corporation

182 F.3d 799 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 27, 1999

First, a list or explanation will only qualify for this treatment if it contains assumptions underlying a forward-looking statement. … Appendix I Page 2 of 4  Phillip Frost, M.D., IVAX’ Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, said “Clearly, we have experienced a very disappointing quarter.

Viola Bryant v. Sheriff, Saint Lucie County, Florida

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 10, 2024

She claims that this bias was not disclosed during the 2018 trial, and would, if known, “have dis- qualified his testimony prior to trial.” … Although Bryant has established error, she has not shown that the error resulted in substantial prejudice.

United States v. Anthony Mincey

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 22, 2020

Qualifying students were therefore able to pay their tuition at FastTrain with federal student loan money. … Thus, Amor clearly had notice of the specific amount the government sought in forfeiture by way of these negotiations.

Imelda Maria Efie Suharti v. U.S. Attorney General

349 F. App'x 443 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 16, 2009

Although it concluded that the IJ’s adverse credibility finding was “clearly erroneous,” it agreed with the IJ’s determination that they failed to provide corroboration sufficient to meet their burden of proving past persecution … The asylum applicant bears the burden of proving that he qualifies as a “refugee.” 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(a).

Cable/Home Communication Corporation v. Network Productions, Inc.

902 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 4, 1990

Establishment of Vaduz, Liechtenstein, Black, Inc. v. … "A party's success on a claim that is 'purely technical or de minimis ' does not qualify him as a 'prevailing party.' " Warner Bros., 877 F.2d at 1126 (quoting Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Indep.

United States v. Frederick Thomas Harrington

204 F. App'x 784 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 25, 2006

A court abuses its discretion when its decision “rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact.” United States v. … Testimony presented at trial established that the Blue Moon actually had departed Jamaica.

Jenny Milena Garcia v. U.S. Atty. General

217 F. App'x 855 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 9, 2007

Because the standard for withholding of removal is more stringent than the “well-founded fear” standard for establishing asylum, failure to qualify for asylum generally forecloses eligibility for withholding of removal. … The guerrillas thus clearly characterized the war tax not simply as a means to obtain money, but as a political act in line with their professed Marxist revolutionary ideals.

United States v. Mauricio Alvarez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 7, 2020

The court found that Alvarez’s conduct qualified as reckless. … We accept the district court’s factual findings at sentencing, unless they are clearly erroneous, and we review de novo the application of the Sentencing Guidelines to the facts. United States v.

Katia Romero Lamus v. U.S. Attorney General

285 F. App'x 663 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 21, 2008

improve, and the IJ should have considered the result of her return; (3) Salas’s testimony that the attack in Maracaibo occurred in 2001, rather than 2004, was a simple error, and the IJ erred by choosing to accept the clearly … However, we have held that escalating physical assaults and verbal threats, cumulatively, may qualify as persecution. See Mejia v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 498 F.3d 1253, 1257-58 (11th Cir. 2007); Delgado v. U.S. Atty.

United States v. Johnny Earl Gibson

189 F. App'x 841 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 14, 2006

As that factual finding was not clearly erroneous, it was not error to apply the three-level enhancement under § 3A1.2(b). … This is true—the plain language of § 5G1.3(b) applies only to undischarged sentences, and Gibson’s sentence was clearly discharged.

Min Thiha Tun v. U.S. Attorney General

343 F. App'x 411 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2009

The BIA concluded that because the IJ’s adverse credibility determination was not clearly erroneous, Tun failed to meet his burden of proof for establishing eligibility for asylum, withholding of removal, and/or CAT relief … Att’y Gen., 446 F.3d 1369, 1375 (11th Cir. 2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted), an applicant who fails to establish eligibility for asylum is generally precluded from qualifying for withholding of removal, see Al

Amerisure Mutual Insurance Company v. Amelia Island Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 15, 2012

Along with its order, the district court issued an opinion evaluating Florida Supreme Court jurisprudence on what qualifies as “property damage” under a CGL. … We agree with Amerisure that J.S.U.B. and Pozzi establish that a claim like that in the present case is not a claim for “property damage” covered by CGL policies.

United States v. Jeff Germany

296 F. App'x 852 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 20, 2008

In addition, funds cannot be routed through a qualifying non-profit organization to other organizations. … When viewed in the light most favorable to the government, the evidence presented at trial clearly supports Germany’s convictions.

United States v. Manuel R. Fernandez

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 22, 2022

That proposed instruction defined “official duty” as follows: To qualify as an “official duty,” the public official must have [made a decision or taken an action] [agreed to make a decision or take an … But if the record clearly sup- ports the adjustment by clearly reflecting the basis for it, the court need not make individualized findings regarding obstruction of jus- tice. Id.

United States v. Amos Christolin

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 20, 2026

SA Philippe’s score qualified him to receive addi- tional compensation from HSI. He estimated that he has served as 2 Mr. Joseph testified at Mr. … That finding is plausible, and there- fore not clearly erroneous. See Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285, 293 (2017).

Simone Hamilton v. Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jan 25, 2019

A plaintiff typically establishes a prima facie case of discrimination by “showing that she was a qualified member of a protected class and was subjected to an adverse employment action in contrast to similarly situated … s argument that Sikorsky breached its contract with the United States under Executive Order 11246 by discriminating and retaliating 3 Hamilton states in her brief that her final e-mail to Lafferty “clearly

United States v. Benjamin Sheftall Eichholz

395 F. App'x 532 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 31, 2010

In 1991, Eichholz established two benefits plans to provide retirement and pension benefits for long-time employees of the law firm (“the plans”). … Eichholz made clearly indicate that on numerous occasions Mr.