Case law

Merchant v. United States Department of Education Office of Civil Rights Atlanta Division

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2021

In February 2015, OCR issued its decision that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the University discriminated against Plaintiff under either statute. Id. at 23–24. … As clearly expressed in section 1082(a)(2) of the Higher Education Act, the Department retains its sovereign immunity in regard to suits seeking injunctions.

Lawshe v. Verizon Communications Inc.

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

Last, while Defendants contend that permitting Lawshe’s claims regarding Image Two to proceed would destroy the immunity provided by Congress, which, they say, is “‘clearly’” designed to “‘immuniz[e] civil … Richardson, 607 F.3d 357, 367 (4th Cir. 2010)), Defendants conflate an intent to immunize mistaken reports with an intent to immunize unfounded reports.

Morrison v. Barnhart

278 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 3, 2003

Importantly, the ALJ must clearly articulate the reasons for giving less weight to the opinion of a treating physician, and the failure to do so is reversible error. … Rheumatologists may be better qualified to determine the effects of fibromyalgia because not all doctors are trained to recognize this disorder. See Stewart, 2000 U.S.App.

Green v. United States

700 F. Supp. 2d 1280 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 23, 2010

In the instant case, Plaintiff has tried to establish that Roberts acted as an agent of MTL. … The PVA waives sovereign immunity for claims involving public vessels. See id.

Anderson v. United States Department of Veteran's Affairs

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 8, 2025

Jan. 8, 2025) (explaining that the court could not determine the applicability of qualified immunity because of the shotgun nature of the pleading); Smith v. … May 11, 2016) (“[The p]laintiff should clearly state under each count the law under which he is proceeding[,] clearly list what facts apply to that count[,] clearly explain under each count how the legal right implicated

McMullen v. Carson

568 F. Supp. 937 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 14, 1983

In analyzing the competing interests at issue in this case, it has been clearly demonstrated by the defendants through overwhelming evidence in the record that the balance preponderates in favor of defendants. … Had plaintiff not been discharged, the number of qualified minority applicants for the Sheriff’s Office would have decreased considerably, thereby frustrating the attainment of the goals embodied in the City’s affirmative

Orange County v. EXPEDIA, INC.

440 F. Supp. 2d 1341 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 2, 2006

As the Supreme Court has stated, “[i]t is enough that exercise of federal review of the question in a case and in similar cases would be disruptive of state efforts to establish a coherent policy with respect to a matter … There is no dispute by either of the parties that the TDT qualifies as a "tax” for the purposes of this suit.

Simpson v. Orlando Health South Lake Hospital

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 25, 2025

Further, temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary and drastic remed[ies] not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishe[s] the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” … Ultimately, however, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has clearly established a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of Plaintiffs § 1983 claim.

Thomas v. Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 2, 2021

The Eleventh Circuit thus has established that a shotgun pleading is an unacceptable form of establishing a claim for relief. … immunity for any statements made by the HCSO in a judicial proceeding.

Thompson v. Orange Lake Country Club, Inc.

224 F. Supp. 2d 1368 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 23, 2002

Judicial claims which serve to amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus earlier EEO complaints are appropriate. Wu, 863 F.2d at 1547 . … Prior to 1990, employers had a common law qualified privilege to discuss former employees with prospective employers without liability. See, e.g., Nodar v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 803 (Fla.1984); Boehm v.

Beebe v. Hanks (Pinellas County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 28, 2022

The phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses the holdings only of the Supreme Court of the United States “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” at 412. … (Doc. 10- his claim was contrary to or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, or was based on an unreasonable factual determination. 2.

Bowman v. Hunter

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 17, 2023

immunity. … In light of the Court’s finding on the merits that the allegations in Count VII, accepted as true, do not establish a violation of the Fourth Amendment, the Court need not separately discuss qualified immunity.

Nesmith v. Martin Marietta Aerospace

676 F. Supp. 1183 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 6, 1987

He was instrumental in *1186 establishing successful training programs for the benefit of blacks and females. … In order to establish a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas, plaintiff must show: 1)that he belongs to a racial minority; 2) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants;

Boyington v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Suwannee County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 24, 2021

A state court decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law if the court identifies the correct legal principle but applies it unreasonably … Indeed, if the state court applied clearly established federal law to reasonably determined facts when determining a claim on its merits, “a federal habeas court may not disturb the state court’s decision unless

Simpson v. Orlando Health South Lake Hospital

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 25, 2025

Further, temporary restraining orders are “extraordinary and drastic remed[ies] not to be granted unless the movant clearly establishe[s] the ‘burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” … Ultimately, however, the Court cannot find that Plaintiff has clearly established a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of Plaintiffs § 1983 claim.

Tampa Electric Co. v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.

367 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 26, 1973

The claims charging Stone & Webster with negligent installation of Unit 6 are clearly within the policy coverage. … Clearly when Westinghouse agreed to sell the turbine generator it must have foreseen that TECO would enter into contracts to sell the electric power to be generated.

GPS INDUSTRIES, LLC v. Lewis

691 F. Supp. 2d 1327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 1, 2010

Since a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, a district court should not issue a preliminary injunction unless the movant clearly establishes the burden of persuasion as to each of the four prerequisites … Information generally known or readily accessible to third parties cannot qualify for trade secret protection. Id.

Jacobs v. City of Jacksonville

762 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 8, 1991

invalid attempt to qualify for the exemption post hac. 1 Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff is a “peddler,” subject to the prohibition on door-to-door peddling set forth in J.O.C. § 250.303. … Contrary to Defendants’ argument, the New Smyrna ordinance was not struck down because the city lacked the power to pass the ordinance; a Florida state law in effect at the time clearly and expressly granted the city the

DeSisto College, Inc. v. Town of Howey-In-The-Hills

706 F. Supp. 1479 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 23, 1989

The motion did not raise and the Court did not address questions of immunity of the individual defendants. Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 10, 1987. … Furthermore, if such relief were permitted, there would be a substantial question whether or not the defendants are protected by qualified immunity. The Court need not address these issues.

Shelton v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

802 F. Supp. 2d 1289 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 27, 2011

with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim— (1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly … The defendant has not received a pardon for any felony or other qualified offense that is necessary for the operation of this paragraph. 5.