Case law

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.”

Johnson v. Garner

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

immunity. … Accepting as true that Defendant Garner told another inmate to “take care of [Plaintiff],” and then days later, that inmate sexually assaulted Plaintiff, Defendant Garner cannot establish as a matter of law that

Jackman v. 20th Judicial Circuit Court Administration

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 10, 2020

It is well established that there is no cause of action against state actors under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. See Jett v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 491 U.S. 701, 733 (1989); Butts v. … Counts II & IV – Eleventh Amendment Immunity Defendants next argue the 20th Judicial Circuit is immune from suit under Counts II (42 U.S.C. § 1981) and Count IV (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3)).

Akins v. Panye

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 23, 2025

The FDOC is a state agency for Eleventh Amendment purposes and has not waived its immunity from suit. See, e.g., Walden v. Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 975 F. Supp. 1330, 1331 (N.D. … Fla. 1996) (noting that the FDOC is “a state agency that is clearly the equivalent of the State of Florida for Eleventh Amendment purposes”).

Aketepe v. United States

925 F. Supp. 731 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 2, 1996

In determining whether the moving party has met its burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Court must draw inferences from … Simply put, the Court is not qualified to make the determination of whether it was reasonable for the Navy to act in the manner in which it did, because the Court can not determine what level of information would be required

Parson v. Vanallen

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 14, 2019

Next, Defendants argue that Parson fails to state plausible Eighth Amendment claims against them, see id. at 7-8, and they are entitled to qualified immunity, see id. at 8-9. … Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082.

Zachman

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 14, 2026

To qualify for a tip credit, the employer must establish that the tip credit is claimed for qualified tipped employees, (2) the employees received proper notice of section 203(m), and (3) all tips received by the employees … Thus, the court concludes that Plaintiffs have not met their “burden to establish that their proposed class is adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.”

Costello v. Wainwright

397 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 22, 1975

Hunt, 411 F.2d 9 (5th Cir. 1969), it will do so where the constitutional rights of inmates are clearly being violated. Sands v. Wainwright, supra. … He is qualified as a physician in Great Britain, Ireland, Canada and the United States. 7 . His qualifications are more fully delineated in footnote 2. 8 .

Alvord v. Wainwright

564 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 5, 1983

Dufour also stated that Alvord did not request an attorney, that no one promised Alvord immunity or threatened or coerced him into making a statement, and that Al-vord told him he understood his rights. Id. at 921-22. … A few moments later, the judge instructed the jury that “[i]f one or more aggravating circumstances are established, you should consider all the evidence tending to establish one or more mitigating circumstances and-give

Crawford

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 20, 2026

They do not establish that Plaintiff suffered no adverse employment action. … Plaintiff does not clearly identify another actionable common-law tort committed by Dimmick that would support these negligence theories.

MacKenzie v. Kindred Hospitals East, L.L.C.

276 F. Supp. 2d 1211 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 24, 2003

The defendant denies that its recordkeeping is inadequate and contends that the plaintiff is not owed any overtime compensation because he qualifies for the FLSA’s professional exemption (Doc. 14). … These Rule 23 decisions (which, as the defendant points out (Doc. 35, p. 10), do not uniformly support the plaintiffs position) are clearly in-apposite.

Simon v. Healthsouth of Sarasota Limited Partnership

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2021

Clarke clearly outlines his education and experience as a physician. (Doc. # 208-1 at 2- 3). … Clarke has failed to establish a reliable methodology for his opinion that DM is not a legitimate medical diagnosis in his expert report.

Corrections Corp. of America v. Scharrer

523 B.R. 259 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2014

An allocation factor shall be established in each county for each fleet type of fractionally owned aircraft for which si-tus in this state has been established as described in subdivision (b). … Clearly this was a complex transaction between sophisticated parties designed to maximize regulatory and tax advantages.

Flynn v. Thermacell Repellents, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 29, 2024

Plaintiff asserts the aforementioned e-mail and attachment represented an unambiguous statement that clearly established this Court’s jurisdiction. (Doc. 17). … However, a defendant’s receipt of an “other paper” only triggers the 30-day removal window if it contains an “unambiguous statement that clearly establishes federal jurisdiction.”

Cooper v. Milliman, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 7, 2025

Kuehn clearly did not exclusively rely on Strassburg to gain an understanding of the facts. … Admissibility of an expert opinion, however, cannot “be established merely by the ipse dixit2 of an admittedly qualified expert,” Frazier, 387 F.3d at 1261.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 8, 2024

A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law “if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by [the U.S. … Clearly established federal law refers to the holding of an opinion by the U.S. Supreme Court at the time of the relevant state court decision.

Sanders v. Doe

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 3, 2020

Plaintiff contends, “This whole incident could have been prevented had staff on duty . . . observed the inmate walking laps around the sleeping area with both of his weapons clearly visible … Additionally, Defendant Latson invokes qualified and Eleventh Amendment immunities and asserts Plaintiff is not entitled to punitive damages. Id. at 11-12.

Graham v. Bruce

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 20, 2024

Plaintiff alleges that the indictment leading to his conviction was invalid—clearly a challenge to the “fact of” his custody. … “Florida law has not established Sheriff’s offices as separate legal entities with the capacity to be sued.” Faulkner v. Monroe Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 523 F. App’x 696, 701 (11th Cir. 2013).

Barrington v. Florida Department of Health

112 F. Supp. 2d 1299 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 21, 2000

The Supreme Court has specifically held that Title VII claims are not immune from the strictures of § 1738. See Kremer, 456 U.S. at 476 , 102 S.Ct. 1883 . … Clearly, Barrington’s remarks to Carroll while in her office constitute explicit, direct, and unambiguous *1307 verbal threats to inflict physically, and were intended to cause Carroll to be frightened.

Barth

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 18, 2026

Barth, 2022 WL 17719572, at *2–3 (noting that the statutes cited by Barth either “do not provide private rights of action against the Government” or do not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity). . . . … But this alleged connection between the Florida-based activity and this District is “neither substantial enough nor [does it] qualify as transacting business.” Kazenercom TOO v. Turan Petroleum, Inc., 590 F.