Case law

Ankner v. United States

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 19, 2024

This provision waives sovereign immunity for such litigation costs and attorney fees incurred. Jove Eng'g, Inc. v. I.R.S., 92 F.3d 1539, 1560 (11th Cir. 1996). … The Counterclaim clearly set forth the United States’ position in the case: 4.

Cherdak v. Cottone

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 16, 2023

Traynor, 116 So. 3d 1205, 1208 (Fla. 2013) (applying only qualified immunity—not absolute immunity—to “alleged defamatory statements the attorney makes during ex-parte, out-of-court questioning of a potential, nonparty … Cherdak does not clearly allege an underlying tort in the Complaint.

Universal City Development Partners, Ltd. v. Ride & Show Engineering, Inc.

230 F.R.D. 688 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 23, 2005

Rule 26(b)(3) does not expressly address the temporal scope of the work-product immunity. … Universal contends that King only was outside counsel to RSE and does not qualify as a client. 7 Neither side cites supporting ease law.

Nicolai v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

928 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 12, 2013

It is long established that “[w]here Congress explicitly enumerates certain exceptions to a general prohibition, additional exceptions are not to be implied, in the absence of evidence of a contrary legislative intent.” … However, 12 U.S.C. § 4617 (j)(4) actually immunizes the FHFA from “any amounts in the nature of penalties or fines, including those arising from the failure of any person to pay any real property, personal property, probate

Grant

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 30, 2026

Fla. 1996) (noting that the FDOC is “a state agency that is clearly the equivalent of the State of Florida for Eleventh Amendment purposes”). … Neither Florida nor the FDOC has consented to suit in federal court, or waived Florida’s Eleventh Amendment immunity for the types of claims raised in Grant’s complaint.

Martinez v. Kanner

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 22, 2022

When balancing a detainee’s liberty interests against the relevant state interests, “courts must show deference to the judgment exercised by a qualified professional.” Id. … The requirement that Martinez participate in “Discovery and Disclosure” group therapy sessions clearly is rationally related to his treatment and rehabilitation.

Wynn v. Vilsack

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 23, 2021

Also, low bidders that did not satisfy the MBE participation goal had an administrative review process during which the low bidder could qualify to be awarded the contract by meeting other established race neutral criteria … Therefore, such relief would be an award of money damages and any award of money damages in this case is barred by sovereign immunity.

Gunter v. CCRC OPCO- Freedom Square, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2020

These acts and omissions have nothing to do with the administration of a qualified pandemic or epidemic product, drug, biological product, or device for which the PREP Act provides immunity. … In a factually similar case from the District Court of Kansas, that court found that the defendants’ PREP Act affirmative defense was insufficient to establish federal court jurisdiction and support removal where the plaintiff

Cappabianca v. Commissioner, United States Customs Service

847 F. Supp. 1558 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 7, 1994

Defendant, on the other hand, states that they are not personnel or medical files, but they do qualify as “similar files” under Dep’t of State v. … Once that purpose is established, the only remaining question is whether a given source is confidential.

Taylor v. Wagner

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 20, 2023

Sheriff Gualtieri has not established that the Court clearly erred in its ruling with respect to either argument. … Sheriff Gualtieri has not demonstrated that the denial of summary judgment on this aspect of the count was clearly erroneous.

John Doe by and through A.W. v. Hernando County School District

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2024

They “specifically targeted” Doe “because they knew that his disability limited his ability to clearly communicate feelings, emotions, and events.” … To the extent Count VII alleges vicarious liability against HCSD and Explorer, it is due to be dismissed because of sovereign immunity.

Harvey v. Lake Buena Vista Resort, LLC

568 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 22, 2008

It is the intention of the parties that this sale and purchase shall qualify for the exceptions provided by 15 U.S.C. … The Resort was clearly aware of the risk of the road construction delay at the time it signed the Purchase Agreement because the road was completed three months before it was signed.

Irving v. St. John

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 22, 2022

immunity because it was not clearly established that he was required to watch the surveillance video. … In light of the Court’s finding on the merits that Landis did not violate Irving’s constitutional rights, the Court need not separately discuss qualified immunity. See Pearson v.

Sandalwood Condominium Ass'n at Wildwood, Inc. v. Allstate Insurance

294 F. Supp. 2d 1315 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2003

Although the structure in Allen was in imminent danger of falling, the Allen court specifically rejected the notion that the damage to the insured building must render it inhabitable in order to qualify as “collapse” damage … The policy clearly states that the collapse damage must be caused only by “hidden decay” or “hidden insect or vermin damage.”

Qadan v. Fla. Prop. Grp. Assocs., Inc.

591 B.R. 796 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2018

Here, because [Appellant] won the auction not by his Stalking Horse Bid but by outbidding the other qualified bidders over and above the Stalking Horse Bid amount, he should be considered just another qualified bidder and … The record before this Court does not establish a violation of Appellant's procedural due process rights by the Bankruptcy Court. 3.

Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, Inc.

745 F. Supp. 2d 1237 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 29, 2010

See Lister, 583 F.3d at 1312 (holding that a reference archived in an on-line database searchable by keyword qualified as printed publication). … A structure is *1257 “corresponding only if the specification [ ] clearly associate^] the structure with the performance of the function.” Cardiac Pacemakers, Inc. v. St.

Coffer v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Polk County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 28, 2025

For purposes of § 2254(d)(1), the phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses the holdings only of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” , 529 U.S. 362, 412 … Coffer has not shown that the state court’s decision was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or was based on an unreasonable factual determination.

Gore v. Dugger

763 F. Supp. 1110 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 17, 1989

The trial court had previously ruled that armed trespass did not qualify as an aggravating circumstance. … These comments by the judge clearly fail to offer any support for Petitioner’s Booth claim. Accordingly, this claim is DENIED.

Stas v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 16, 2025

What is more, a preliminary injunction is “not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to the four requisites.” Am. C.L. Union of Fla., Inc. v. Miami-Dade Cty. Sch. … “In 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), Congress waived sovereign immunity by giving the federal courts jurisdiction to review and modify or reverse the Commissioner's decisions . . .

United States v. Kiester

214 B.R. 251 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 12, 1997

Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. The burden is on the appellant to show that the bankruptcy court’s finding is clearly erroneous. … The court held that this afforded appellant a fair opportunity to be heard and that proce *255 durally, the order did not qualify as an improper ex parte preparation.