Case law

Young v. Pasco County Detention Center

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 9, 2021

He alleges no facts to establish a prison official’s deliberate indifference to his needs or safety. … Young must identify each claim for relief, clearly state relevant facts that support each claim, and explain the involvement of each defendant in the alleged constitutional violations. To the extent that Mr.

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.

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.

McBride

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 21, 2026

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.”

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.

Hennessy v. Climate First Bank

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

Dev., Inc., 610 F.3d 1253, 1264 (11th Cir. 2010) (noting that intentional discrimination may be established through direct, statistical, or circumstantial evidence). … Count II: Termination Count II suffers the same infirmity as Count I with the additional failure to clearly identify if the facts leading up to the termination are different

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

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.

Tur v. Nettleton

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 26, 2022

Based on the text and history, the court must determine whether complete preemption is manifest in the clearly expressed intent of Congress. Id. (citing Metropolitan Life, 481 U.S. at 66). … Anticipated Immunity Defense The Federal Torts Claims Act (“FTCA”) confers absolute immunity to federal employees who commit a tort while acting within the scope of their employment

Lopez v. United States

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

Moss has established the statutory requirements for filing a second or successive motion, it shall proceed to consider the merits of the motion, along with any defenses and arguments the respondent may raise. … not clearly explain what happened, . . . the party with the burden loses.” Beeman v. United States, 871 F.3d 1215, 1225 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Romine v. Head, 253 F.3d 1349, 1357 (11th Cir. 2001)).

Weis v. Board of Trustees of Florida Gulf Coast University

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 7, 2020

Chesnutt sexually harass a female student and then fail her very well-qualified boyfriend.” (Id. ¶ 34.) … Establishing actual notice in such a fashion is fact-intensive, and is sometimes successful and sometimes insufficient. See e.g.

Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. United States

368 F. Supp. 1009 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 14, 1973

This Court is bound to hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity. 14 But the agency action in this case of imposing universally … The instant case is clearly distinguishable on its facts. Here we have had no money paid by FEC or SCL which must be returned, as would have been the case in Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v.

Dustin v. Palmer

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

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. … As to any access to courts claim, a plaintiff must first establish an actual injury. Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354 (1996).

Harrell v. United States

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

1 being qualified, as required by Fed. … She's qualified. (Id., pp. 130-131.)

Patel

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 14, 2025

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.”

RB Jai Alai, LLC v. Secretary of the Florida Department of Transportation

112 F. Supp. 3d 1301 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 30, 2015

To reiterate, § 771.117(d) provided a non-exhaustive list of the types of projects that will generally qualify' as CEs. … It is notable that § 771.117(d) clearly distinguishes between "construction” and "rer construction.”

Worldwide Aircraft Services Inc. v. Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services

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

As relevant here, the NSA establishes a dispute resolution system for when healthcare providers and insurers dispute surprise medical bills. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg- 111(c)(1)–(5). … As discussed above, 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-112(a) clearly states the air ambulance transportation provided by a nonparticipating provider must be a service that would be ordinarily covered by a participating provider

Clumm v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 19, 2020

At the pretrial conference, the State informed the trial court that Clumm qualified as “a violent career criminal” (“VCC”) and that it had made a plea offer of “seventy 3 Under Martinez, a prisoner may establish … The failure to properly inform Clumm as to his sentencing exposure clearly satisfies the first prong of the Strickland analysis.

Memnon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 25, 2026

The amended complaint must clearly state the legal theory or theories upon which Plaintiff seeks relief. … Additionally, the amended complaint must clearly state the basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims.

Gonzalez-Jimenez De Ruiz v. United States

231 F. Supp. 2d 1187 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 14, 2002

Allegations of difficulty in school and mood swings is clearly insufficient to satisfy the impact rule. As the court in R.J. and P.J. v. … The Federal Tort Claims Act waives sovereign immunity for intentional infliction of emotional distress, and therefore, Plaintiffs may prosecute claims under this theory if Florida law recognizes the tort of intentional infliction