Case law

Hinson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 3, 2022

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. … Considering the record, the Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established

Saweress v. Ivey

354 F. Supp. 3d 1288 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 1, 2019

To establish a prima facie case in a failure-to-hire case, a plaintiff must show that: "(1) he was a member of a protected class; (2) he applied and was qualified for a position for which the defendant was accepting applications … Such assertions by Defendant clearly run contrary to the well-established law delineating the elements of a prima facie case in a failure-to-hire situation like Plaintiff's.

Saulsberry

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 10, 2025

; and (4) other equally or less-qualified employees outside her class were promoted. … Termination To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination, Saulsberry must show: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position;

Vazquez v. Lee County Board of County Commissioners

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2025

While judicial claims may “amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus” the allegations in an EEOC charge, using a judicial complaint to make entirely 878 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2018) in support of the argument that because … rejected despite his qualifications, and (4) other equally or less qualified employees who were not members of the protected class were promoted.”

Pablo Alejandro Zamora Mejia v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et al.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 4, 2025

If the movant establishes that he is justified in seeking ex parte relief, he then must show that injunctive relief is appropriate. … Zamora Mejia counters that sovereign immunity and the discretionary-function and intentional-tort exceptions would likely bar such a claim. That is true. See, e.g., Douglas v. United States, 796 F.

Ridge v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

339 F. Supp. 2d 1323 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 12, 2004

The medical documentation that has been provided to The Hartford is unsatisfactory and does not clearly support continued disability. We attempted to obtain a FCE as Dr. Baras had recommended and Dr. … work for which he was or could become qualified, considering his previous training, education or experience.

Roundtree v. Ross

304 F.R.D. 644 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 18, 2015

“Before a district court may grant a motion for class certification, a plaintiff seeking to represent a proposed class must establish that the proposed class is “adequately defined and clearly ascertainable.” ” Little v. … As a result, Roundtree has established numerosity. ii. Commonality Roundtree next must establish commonality, or that there exists questions of law or fact common to the class. Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(2).

Stephens

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

A nine-day delay is clearly insufficient to infer bad faith or wrongful purpose. King v. State of Florida, 650 F. Supp. 2d 1157, 1164 (N.D. … Personnel Action and Its Documentation To qualify for temporary reinstatement under the FWA, a plaintiff must establish that his whistleblower disclosure did not occur “after

Pete's Towing Co. v. City of Tampa, Fla.

648 F. Supp. 2d 1276 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 13, 2009

. § 1983 “imposes liability on any person who, under color of state law, deprives a person ‘of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and the laws.’ ” Biasella v. … Further, to establish the “infringement” element of a “stigma-plus” suit, a claimant must establish that the state sought to remove or significantly alter a life, liberty, or property interest recognized by state law.

Butler v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 21, 2021

Further, there are 250 numbered paragraphs which precede the counts and do not clearly relate to specific claims. (Id. at 2–62.) … He does not clearly explain how “managers creat[ing] a hostile work environment for every employee at the Fort Myers Hearing Office who pursued EEO claims” supports his claim or establishes causation. (Id.)

Multiwave Sensors, Inc. v. Sunsight Instruments, LLC

283 F. Supp. 3d 1279 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 29, 2017

Patents are presumed to be valid, and the challenger bears the burden of establishing invalidity by clear and convincing evidence. Microsoft Corp. v. i4i Ltd. … Second, inclusion of the qualifier "substantially"-something referred to in patent interpretation as "a word of degree"-adds "further confusion."

Porter

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2026

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.” Id. at 412. … But Traylor is not “clearly established federal law” for purposes of federal habeas review under the AEDPA.

Howard v. Hartford Life & Accident Insurance

929 F. Supp. 2d 1264 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 15, 2013

Hartford responds that surveillance is appropriate and reasonable, and that the “video showed Howard clearly exceeding the limitations that she described to Hartford ... and to her treating physicians, thus discrediting the … Of course, the determination of whether surveillance is truly probative of whether the claimant qualifies for disability benefits is heavily based on case-specific factors.

Miller v. Carson

401 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 17, 1975

The final decision may, indeed, rest with the qualified voters of the governmental unit involved. … of work or study release programs; (3) establishment of group and individual counselling programs; (4) establishment of basic and remedial education programs; (5) expansion of existing religious programs; (6) establishment

Brackett v. T S E Industries Inc

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

“To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must show that, at the time of the adverse employment action, he had a disability, he was a qualified individual, and he was subjected … That said, on the facts alleged, such a connection clearly exists. TSE, Mr. Ferault, and Mr. Fava were acutely aware of Mr. Brackett’s need and requests for accommodations.

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

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

The one-year limitation established in Section 2244(d) is not jurisdictional and, as a consequence, “is subject 1 Huey’s direct appeal concluded on July 12, 2019. … Because the application is clearly time-barred, Huey is entitled to neither a COA nor leave to appeal in forma pauperis. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Leave to appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED.

Parfitt v. Florida Gulf Coast University Board of Trustees

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 23, 2020

Even if the CBA required that, it is well established failing to follow state procedures is not actionable as a federal procedural due process claim. E.g., Maddox v. … Given this conclusion, there is no need to address Llorens’ qualified immunity. Faucher v. Rodziewicz, 891 F.2d 864, 871 (11th Cir. 1990). B.

Berger v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

185 F. Supp. 3d 1324 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 5, 2016

The final six words qualify the word “cigarettes,” and they presuppose that not every cigarette is “defective and unreasonably dangerous.” … In Brown & Williamson, the Supreme Court held “that Congress has clearly precluded the FDA from asserting jurisdiction to regulate tobacco products.” 529 U.S. at 126, 120 S.Ct. 1291 (emphasis added).

Juymohan v. Sandall

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 24, 2025

the Court to dismiss this case at any time if the Court determines that the action is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune … Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are “indisputably meritless,” id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are “clearly baseless.” Denton v.

Carpenter v. Putnam County Sheriff Office

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 28, 2020

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) dismissals should only be ordered when the legal theories are "indisputably meritless," id. at 327, or when the claims rely on factual allegations which are "clearly baseless." … Here, Carpenter has not alleged sufficient facts to establish his entitlement to relief.