Case law

United States Ex Rel. Keeler v. Eisai, Inc.

568 F. App'x 783 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 11, 2014

Whether submission of the claim is sufficiently established is a different question than whether the scheme has been sufficiently pleaded. … And finally, there still may be other allegations that fall outside the FCA ambit altogether; that is not to say that Eisai may not be immune from action under other statutes by other parties.

Lucky Capital Management, LLC v. Miller & Martin, PLLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jul 3, 2018

A legal malpractice claim may therefore qualify as an assignable cause of action under O.C.G.A. § 44-12-24. See Villanueva v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., 740 S.E.2d 108, 110 (Ga. 2013). … I had a conversation it clearly says, because he said Buddy called today. I don’t remember the conversation, though.

United States v. Timothy Wade Coffell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Dec 14, 2017

A factual finding is clearly erroneous only if, after reviewing the entire record, we are left with “a definite and firm conviction” that the district court made a mistake. … “A firearm that reasonably appears to be in the possession of a convicted felon qualifies as contraband—and is therefore subject to seizure under the plain view doctrine.” See Folk, 754 F.3d at 912.

United States v. Jesse Lewis

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

An abuse of discretion occurs if the district court applies an incorrect legal standard or makes findings of fact that are clearly erroneous.” United States v. … Lewis cannot establish plain error, however, as he has failed to show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights.

Matthew John Thompson v. B. Smith

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 12, 2020

This Court has yet to articulate boundaries for the de minimis standard we established in Harris I. See, e.g., Brooks v. … Thompson suggests, no such cap existed, there would have been no need for Congress to reject the original language, since that language clearly provided that a defendant would pay any fees that were greater than 25% of the

United States v. William Gross, Jr.

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 6, 2024

Not only that, Gross continues, but Jennette clearly testified that she was merely adopting the conclusion contained in the ex- traction report. … Jor- dan, who was qualified as an expert, explained that he had re- viewed Barbee’s report and concluded that it had followed best practices.

United States v. Ashley Anders Bishop

683 F. App'x 899 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 3, 2017

Although the affidavit established a connection between Bishop and the iPhone, it failed to establish a link between the iPhone and any criminal activity. See Martin, 297 F.3d at 1314. … And such a search, as we have established, would have been lawful.

United States v. Craig Narram Williams, Jr.

177 F. App'x 914 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Apr 24, 2006

As noted above, Williams cannot demonstrate that he should not have qualified as a career offender under section 4B1.1. … In addition, attached to the notice was a copy of the state court’s final disposition, which clearly showed the conviction was for possession with intent.

Britney Denton v. Board of Governors for the State University System

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Jun 9, 2026

The Students clearly fall into this class. … And the Students (as current FAMU students suffering these conditions) clearly have “a personal stake in the outcome” of this case. Corbett, 930 F.3d at 1232.

Michael Zuppardo v. Steven S. Osher

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 3, 2011

At that point, as it is clear that either Zuppardo or BC Properties would qualify as bonafide purchasers under the Bankruptcy Code and the Trustee lacked authority to undo either sale transaction regarding Unit 19, the … Appx. 838, 839 (5th Cir. 2009) (unpublished) (“It is well established that a trustee has no standing to bring tort claims that belong exclusively to creditors of the bankruptcy estate.”); Williams v.

GEORGIA MUSLIM VOTER PROJECT v. Kemp

918 F.3d 1262 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 21, 2019

Nor is the Secretary likely to establish undue prejudice. … That power does not extend—as the District Court clearly believed—to prescribing new rules of decision on the state’s behalf. See Virginia v. Am. Booksellers Ass’n, 484 U.S. 383, 397, 108 S.

Kristian Horneland v. United of Omaha Insurance Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

Defendant again asserted that Plaintiff had not sufficiently established his disability. … Gelia then stated that it was “clearly now apparent that the condition that disables [Plaintiff] is in the lumbar region and includes sciatica.” Dr.

Chadwick Willacy v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 30, 2017

Florida law at the time of Willacy’s trial provided that “[n]o person who is under prosecution for any crime . . . shall be qualified to serve as a juror.” Fla. Stat. § 40.013(1) (1991). … petitioner on a claim that was adjudicated on the merits in state court unless the state court’s adjudication: (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

General Star National Insurance Company v. MDLV LLC

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 21, 2024

If a policy’s text is “plain and unambiguous,” we must give that lan- guage “the meaning it clearly expresses.” N. Pointe Cas. Ins. Co. v. M & S Tractor Servs., Inc., 62 So. 3d 1281, 1282 (Fla. … And if a basis exists for establishing liability that does not involve conversion at all, General Star has a duty to defend.

United States v. Christopher Brian Cosimano

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Aug 24, 2022

“Because the statute lists multiple acts that each qualify as a crime, we apply the USCA11 Case: 19-14841 Date Filed: 08/24/2022 Page: 17 of 24 19-14841 Opinion of the Court … Because the record does not establish that this finding was clearly erroneous, we affirm. 3.

United States v. Jeanne E. Germeil

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Feb 14, 2023

Expert testimony is admissible if (1) the expert is qualified to give competent testimony on the testified-to subjects, (2) the ex- pert uses a sufficiently reliable methodology to reach his conclu- … threshold standard of medical care by which the jury could measure [her] conduct,” and that, in fact, because “the difference between civil malpractice and criminal conduct is a matter of degree,” “a clearly

United States v. Steven Richard Allen

182 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 23, 2006

Although Allen qualified as a career offender, however, his adjusted offense level of 38 was higher than the offense level indicated in the career-offender table in U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1(b); thus, his adjusted offense level … Allen contends that the probative value of this evidence was “clearly outweighed” by its prejudicial impact because, even without this evidence, the government presented a strong case as to his intent.

United States v. Nicole R. Bramwell

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Mar 7, 2022

It sends the wrong message and sends it loudly and clearly. What is true of white collar crimes generally is no less true of health care crimes in particular. … She did not even qualify for an acceptance of responsibility reduction.

Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

839 F.3d 958 · Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2016

And we conclude that Villarreal is not entitled to equitable tolling of his claim of disparate treatment because he admitted facts that establish that he did not diligently pursue his rights. … In fact, the Supreme Court has even told us that when the word “employee” “lacks any temporal qualifier” it can include people other than current employees. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 342, 117 S.

Richard M. Villarreal v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · Oct 5, 2016

And we conclude that Villarreal is not entitled to equitable tolling of his claim of disparate treatment because he admitted facts that establish that he did not diligently pursue his rights. … In fact, the Supreme Court has even told us that when the word “employee” “lacks any temporal qualifier” it can include people other than current employees. Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 342, 117 S.