Case law

Betts v. City of Edgewater

646 F. Supp. 1427 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 23, 1986

Among the documents are questionable purchases, which include: clearly different penmanship for plaintiff’s initials on a $930.00 purchase requisition when compared with his initials on four other requisitions; three different … immunity.

Johnson v. Cheatham

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

that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; Defendant Mezyk is entitled to absolute immunity as a United States Public Health Service officer; Defendants Dunbar, Mezyk, and Lockett are entitled to qualified … immunity because Plaintiff fails to state a claim against them; and all official capacity suits under Bivens4 are due to be dismissed.

McCalla

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

Rollins v. Banker Lopez & Gassler, PA

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

Rollins “must establish a prima facie case by showing that (1) she belongs to a protected class; (2) she was qualified to do the job; (3) she was subjected to an adverse employment … Regarding the prima facie case, BLG argues that only Rollins’ termination qualifies as a materially adverse action and that Rollins cannot establish causation for her termination

Kennon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Manatee County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 20, 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 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. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Collier)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 6, 2025

“Clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles set forth in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court when the state court issued its decision. White, 134 S. … A decision is “contrary to” clearly established federal law if the state court either: (1) applied a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth by Supreme Court case law; or (2) reached a different result from

Bay Farms Corp. v. Great American Alliance Insurance

835 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 7, 2011

Damage occurring on or after October 15, 2005, that qualifies as “substantial structural damage” as defined in the Florida Building Code. Fla. Stat. § 627.706 (2)(k) (2011) (emphasis added). … This contention flies in the face of reason and is inapposite to well-established Florida law.

Drago v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 17, 2022

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.

Debella v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 21, 2025

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.”

Cato v. State of Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 17, 2019

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. … The state court’s adjudication of the claim was also not contrary to clearly established federal law, and it did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

Yellowpages Photos, Inc. v. YP, LLC

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

The Court determined that FMEA is a well-established safety analysis method that is recognized in the field of engineering. Id. at *5. … The expert in Jones is clearly not analogous to Brown. The expert employed a recognized methodology, and reviewed numerous materials involved in the case.

National Trust Insurance v. Graham Bros. Construction Co.

916 F. Supp. 2d 1244 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 4, 2013

That argument conflicts with the firmly established contract principle that a written contract acceptance is effective at the time it is dispatched — not when it is received by the offeror. Id. at *5. … The Policy’s insuring agreement clearly does not cover payments of a judgment in favor of a purported insured. (Doc. # 99) (emphasis in original).

Agaro v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Putnam County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 21, 2020

After a review of the record and the applicable law, 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 federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings.

Fisher v. Rhoden

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2023

immunity; and (8) he is not entitled to any damages because he alleges only de minimis physical injuries which do not entitle him to compensatory and punitive damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(e). … immunity or Fisher’s failure to state a claim for damages. 3.

Mahoney v. Nokia, Inc.

444 F. Supp. 2d 1246 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 28, 2006

Thereafter, summary judgment is mandated against the non-moving party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact for trial. … Nokia would establish performance goals, and employees who reached those goals were given a bonus. (Doc. 50, Att. 13 at 13).

Clewiston Commons LLC v. City of Clewiston

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

Specifically, the Court granted summary judgment to the City on Count I (the equal protection claim) only as to the request for a special exception, and as to the individual Defendants based on qualified immunity. … The Court previously found that defendants Gardner, Perry, Reese, and McNeil are entitled to qualified immunity as to this claim. (Doc. 189 at 5).

Rush v. Meininger

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 24, 2023

Further, Appellees asserted that Rush did not meet her burden of proving a basis for her claim that overcame the Trustee’s quasi-judicial immunity. Id. … Thus, in reviewing the bankruptcy court’s factual findings, the district court must accept the factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous.

McCorriston v. L.W.T., Inc.

536 F. Supp. 2d 1268 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 22, 2008

Plaintiff has not established that Defendants had actual knowledge that LWT’s claim was time-barred when they sent the January 12, 2006 letter. … Corp., 668 F.Supp. 1480, 1487-89 (filing of a clearly time-barred lawsuit is illegal pursuant to § 16921 § 1692e(2)(A), and § 1692e(10)). 3 .

St. Johns Vein Ctr., Inc. v. StreamlineMD LLC

347 F. Supp. 3d 1047 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 28, 2018

Fla. 2001) ("To qualify as a trade secret, the information the plaintiff seeks to protect must derive economic value from not being readily ascertainable by others and must be the subject of reasonable efforts to protect … And, with its failure to establish that CVDJBA committed a tortious act within the state, SJVC cannot establish that specific personal jurisdiction is appropriate over CVDJBA under Florida Statutes section 48.193(1)(a)(2)

Clark v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Putnam County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 29, 2025

The state court need not issue an opinion explaining its rationale for the state court’s decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. … As such, upon 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