Case law

Blake v. White

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2025

Watkins, 2023 WL 4422527, at *8 (finding verbal sexual threats did not present exceptionally rare case that would give a reasonable correctional officer fair notice of its illegality for purposes of qualified immunity … immunity or compensatory and punitive damages arguments.

Reeseman v. Pinellas Rent-A-Car, Inc.

987 F. Supp. 1428 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 8, 1997

Kastranakes to show that she was qualified for the position. See, e.g., Maria Kastranakes Depo. (Doc. No. 33), p. 17; Michael Kastranakes Depo. (Doc. No. 34), pp. 8-11, 15-16, 33-34; Walega Depo. (Doc. No. 32), p. 50. … Johnson testified, if believed, clearly reflects a discriminatory attitude which correlates to Plaintiff's termination. See, e.g., Buckley v.

United States v. Drum Service Co. of Florida

109 F. Supp. 2d 1348 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 1999

Therefore, now (for the first time), EPA has identified and very clearly described specific discreet activities. … Specifically, the United States had argued that only the permanent remedy chosen by the EPA qualified as “the remedial action.”

Goodman

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 22, 2026

The state court 2 “In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for an evidentiary hearing.” Jones v. Sec’y, Fla. … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Trevino v. Andrews

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 3, 2023

In rejecting the claim, the postconviction court explained that “the Defendant’s presence at the crime scene was established by his statements to law enforcement. … ; (4) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by qualified immunity; (5) Plaintiff’s claims are barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity; and (6) Plaintiff fails to state a claim for relief.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Business Law Group, P.A.

319 F.R.D. 386 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 22, 2017

Because Plaintiff has standing, the Court will next address whether Wilmington has establish that the proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable. B. … is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.”

Francisco Rodriguez Santa v. M. McKinney, T. Quegan, and J. Marshall

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2026

dismiss a prisoner's civil action prior to service if it determines that the complaint is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary damages from a defendant who is immune … Likewise, a complaint may be dismissed as frivolous when the court discerns from its face “that the factual allegations are clearly baseless or that the legal theories are indisputably meritless.” Davis v.

Dallemagne v. Dallemagne

440 F. Supp. 2d 1283 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2006

The evidence clearly establishes that, under French law, petitioner had “rights of custody” concerning the child at the time of removal. *1296 The second component of this requirement is that petitioner establish that his … Petitioner has produced an affidavit from a qualified French attorney to that effect. Petitioner’s Exhibit 14.

GAEDTKE v. McNeil

612 F. Supp. 2d 1209 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 25, 2009

“resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” § 2254(d)(1). … established federal law, involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or were based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in the light of the evidence presented in state court.

United States of America v. Darryl J. Madison et al.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 15, 2025

An affirmative defense is “insufficient as a matter of law” only if it is “patently frivolous” on its face or if “it is clearly invalid as a matter of law.” Belmer v. … Ans. at 15, those statements are categorically immune from liability under the litigation privilege doctrine, which “affords absolute immunity for acts occurring during the course of judicial proceedings.”

Jones v. Federal Express Corp.

984 F. Supp. 2d 1271 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 14, 2013

Lang clearly noted that Mr. Jones had hardware in his back after surgery; he stated that an MRI showed “good placement of the instrumentation.” 4 (AR-000136). C. Conclusion Mr. … Jones has failed to prove that he qualifies for continued benefits.

Cassamajor v. Planet Fitness

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 17, 2025

Such establishments are listed in Title II and consist of the following: (1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a … Here, even assuming that Planet Fitness qualifies as a place of public accommodation under Title II,1 there are several problems with Cassamajor’s Title II claim.

Thomas Pritchard v. Florida High School Athletic Association, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiff must show that he was: (1) disabled or perceived to be disabled; (2) a qualified individual … Furthermore, if establishing discrimination by failure to make a reasonable accommodation, plaintiff must show that (1) he was disabled, (2) he was otherwise qualified, and (3) a reasonable

Jackson v. ABC LIQUORS

983 F. Supp. 1388 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 10, 1997

Even if Defendant had satisfied its initial burden, the facts set forth above (when viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff) clearly make out a prima facie case of discrimination. 5 Moreover, the possibility that … But the Act does not purport to deal with outsiders; nor can we imagine that Congress desired to give them a brand new immunity from prosecution under [§ 241]---- Johnson, 390 U.S. at 566-67 , 88 S.Ct. at 1234 (emphasis in

Hannon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

622 F. Supp. 2d 1169 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 23, 2007

The state court’s application of clearly established law “must be more than incorrect or erroneous,” it must be “objectively unreasonable.” Id. … application of such clearly established law.

Southern Offshore Fishing Ass'n v. Daley

995 F. Supp. 1411 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 24, 1998

Accordingly, counts one and four are clearly justiciable. 22 Counts two and three pose more difficult questions. … The Supreme Court repeatedly recognizes “that matters relating ‘to the conduct of foreign relations ... are so exclusive *1428 ly entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry

McKinney v. Warden, FCC Coleman-Medium

870 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 4, 2012

. § 2241 citing Begay and Archer for his-reasserted claim that his sentence was illegal. 2 “The problem for Gilbert was that his Archer based claim clearly was barred by ... the sécond and successive petitions provision [ … With only two qualifying convictions, an ACCA enhancement would not apply. .

Curry v. Jenkins

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 12, 2023

“The Eleventh Circuit has clearly established that suits brought against individuals in their official capacities for violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are tantamount to suing the municipality itself.” Geidel v. … It is well-established that claims against a stage agency or division, such as the Sheriff, for the intentional infliction of emotional distress are barred by sovereign immunity since such claims involve allegations of

EDST, LLC v. iApartments, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 31, 2023

Good cause is established by showing that disclosure will cause “a clearly defined and serious injury.” Digital Assurance, 2017 WL 320830, at *2. … (“Because the commercially sensitive nature of the information is the only basis Barnett provides for nondisclosure, and its conclusory statements fall short of establishing that the information qualifies as

Melady v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pasco County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 14, 2023

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the Supreme] Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently … Accordingly, “[t]he focus . . . is on whether the state court’s application of clearly established federal law is objectively unreasonable, and . . . an unreasonable application is different from an incorrect one.”