Case law

Terry v. Wilkie

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 21, 2019

“[T]o establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the [Act], [the plaintiff] must demonstrate that [he] (1) is disabled, (2) is a qualified individual, and (3) was subjected to unlawful … But later, when he was squarely asked whether he requested a chair while working as a supply technician, Terry testified clearly that he did not request a chair.

Haymons v. Williams

795 F. Supp. 1511 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 30, 1992

O’Bannon does not clearly foreclose plaintiffs’ claims. Indeed, the Court finds, infra pp. 1521-1522, that O’Bannon is factually distinguishable from the present case. … No disruption of state efforts to establish a coherent Medicaid policy will occur if the Court grants the relief sought by plaintiffs.

Windom v. Orange County, Florida

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

The burden of establishing that there is no genuine issue of material fact lies on the moving party, and it is a stringent one. Celotex Corp. v. … immunity.”

Muniz v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Hillsborough County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2024

A decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably … 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.”

Lajoie v. Pavcon, Inc.

146 F. Supp. 2d 1240 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2001

However, in the instant case, the issues were clearly non-frivolous and the facts do not show an improper motive by either party in bringing this action or in vigorously litigating this matter. … Any work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment qualifies as a work for hire. The employer is the author of that work and thus the owner of the copyright.

Herman v. Seaworld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.

320 F.R.D. 271 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 10, 2017

The burden of proof to establish the propriety of class certification rests with the advocate of the class, and failure to establish any one of the four Rule 23(a) factors and at least one of the alternative requirements … Therefore, the Court finds that the numer-osity requirement is clearly met. iii.

Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

4 F. Supp. 3d 1286 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 5, 2014

Both Figure 2’s depiction of the data store and the specification’s discussion of the “data storage” (a term synonymous with “data store”) include a “charity account,” which is a “provider account” established for the benefit … Column 12, beginning at line 41, states: If the PIN number is correct and thereby qualified, the CC in step 518 lists the rounder number or percentage that is applied to each account entry ($1, $3, 2%, etc.), stop orders

Grayer v. Liberty Life Assur. Co. of Boston

331 F. Supp. 2d 1383 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 20, 2004

Thus, SSA established March 1, 2001 as Plaintiffs disability date for the purpose of SSDI benefits. … Even under the most lenient interpretation of the Plan, one doctor’s note within a period of one year hardly qualifies as “proof of continued disability and regular attendance of a physician.” Under these circumstances.

Great American Assurance Co. v. Elliott

846 F. Supp. 2d 1258 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 6, 2012

While Douglas and Hooper correctly assert that "there can be no 'constructive intent’ imputed to the insured,” (Doc. 73 at 7), "actual intent” can be established from the circumstances of the insured’s actions. . … Under the terms of the Policy, however, "property damage” refers to damage to "tangible property,” and thus interference with Douglas and Hooper's intangible rights of disposition would not qualify as "property damage.”

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 16, 2022

Upon thorough review of the record, this 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 … Upon thorough review of the record, this 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

Haggerty

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

Finding no qualifying basis under 28 U.S.C. § 455, the Court finds that disqualification is not required. The motions are denied. 3. … 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to determine if the action “(i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune

Local Access, LLC v. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2023

This immunity extends to parties and counsel. Id.; see also Jackson v. BellSouth Telecomms., 372 F.3d 1250, 1275 (11th Cir. 2004). … The litigation privilege “may be considered in resolving a motion to dismiss when the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense to bar the action.”

Essex Builders Group, Inc. v. Amerisure Insurance

429 F. Supp. 2d 1274 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 21, 2005

We find this interpretation was not the intent of the contractor and the insurance company when they entered into the subject contract of insurance, and the language of the policy clearly excludes this type of coverage. … The record establishes that the property involved here qualifies as physically injured, so the portion of the exclusion that addresses property that has not been physically injured does not apply.

Spiral Direct, Inc. v. Basic Sports Apparel, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 3d 1334 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 12, 2017

The court reasoned: The record clearly establishes that [the agent] knew he was not rendering all of the identified services as of the filing date of his application, and nevertheless he swore that he was using the mark . … Clearly, as an owner of Basic, Nadia has an interest in the outcome of the case.

United States v. Davis

65 F. Supp. 3d 1352 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2014

A “qualifying offender” is any person who is 1. a. … Stat. § 943.325 requires that qualifying offenders shall be required to submit a DNA sample to a department-designated facility.

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.

Altidor

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 15, 2026

To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the conduct complained of was committed by a person acting under color of state law, and the conduct deprived him of rights, privileges, or immunities secured … Absent direct involvement by a supervisor, the requisite causal connection “can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged

Franklin v. Nixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 5, 2023

. § 1997e(e) for his due process claim; and (4) the Eleventh Amendment entitles Defendants to immunity. Motion at 3-16. … Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082.

Post v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

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

A decision involves an “unreasonable application” of clearly established federal law “if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme] Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that … 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

Smith v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2021

The Commissioner has established a specific sequential evaluation process for determining whether a child claimant is disabled or not disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924. … Since the Appeals Council found made this finding, it clearly determined that the letter was not material. See Hyde, 823 F.2d at 459.