Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
2,960 results
0.54s
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)
Cited 5 timesPublishedAmerican Mariculture, Inc. v. Syaqua Americas, Inc.
District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2021
“Fully half do not qualify as affirmative defenses (and state no facts), while the other half constitute conclusory allegations without any stated factual support.” … In the Court's view, Plaintiff has failed to establish that the affirmative defenses have no possible relationship to the controversy, may confuse
Cited 0 timesUnknownKliem v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Lee County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 4, 2020
“A legal principle is ‘clearly established’ within the meaning of [§ 2254] only when it is embodied in a holding of [the United States Supreme] Court.” Thaler v. Haynes, 559 U.S. 43, 47 (2010); see also Williams v. … Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 412 (2000) (“[T]he phrase ‘clearly established Federal law, as determined by [the Supreme] Court’ refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of [the Supreme] Court’s decisions as of the time
Cited 0 timesUnknownAfshar v. Secretary, Department of Corrections, Lee County
District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 5, 2025
In this context, “clearly established federal law” consists of the governing legal principles, and not the dicta, set forth in the decisions of the United States Supreme Court at the time the state … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownEvans v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Pinellas County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2023
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
Cited 0 timesUnknownCont'l 332 Fund, LLC v. Albertelli
317 F. Supp. 3d 1124 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 11, 2018
The court there noted that although the claim seemed to track with § 1962(c), the defendants were "clearly entitled to have notice of which specific provisions of § 1962 plaintiffs [were] relying on." Id. … Because it is the use or investment of racketeering income that violates § 1962(a), rather than the racketeering acts themselves, it makes sense that qualifying injuries under § 1962(a) should flow from the prohibited acts
Cited 46 timesPublishedDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 17, 2020
The first is that the removing party must establish that removal is based on “a federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality . . . .” Id. (quoting Alabama v. … “The word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion. The automatic awarding of attorney’s fees to the prevailing party would pretermit the exercise of that discretion.” Martin v.
Cited 0 timesUnknown536 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 14, 1982
However, the evidence also established the pseudo nature of the inmate law clerk program. … While recognizing that the defendant’s inmate law clerks serve a useful purpose, the plain and simple truth of the matter is that they are not qualified to function as lawyers. They are only law library assistants.
Reversed on other grounds by Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc., Harold Raymond Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright, Etc., 775 F.2d 1433 (1985)Cited 15 timesPublishedHipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance
65 F. Supp. 2d 1314 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 15, 1999
In order to establish a pattern or practice of age discrimination by Liberty National, Plaintiffs must establish that unlawful age discrimination was Liberty National’s regular procedure or policy. … equivalent positions to the position that they allege they should have retained for which they were qualified, and (2) that the Plaintiffs failed to use reasonable diligence in seeking such a substantially equivalent position
Reversed on other grounds by Hipp v. Liberty National Life Insurance, 252 F.3d 1208 (2001)Cited 7 timesPublishedShootes v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 13, 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. … Richter, 2 “In a habeas corpus proceeding, the burden is on the petitioner to establish the need for an evidentiary hearing.” Jones v. Sec’y, Fla.
Cited 0 timesUnknownSmith v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 23, 2025
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. … 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.
Cited 0 timesUnknownJERMC LTD. v. Town of Redington Shores
District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 24, 2020
Page 8 of 21 The individual Defendants argue that Count V should be dismissed because it is barred by the statute of limitations, and because they are entitled to qualified immunity. … With regard to their substantive due process claim, Plaintiffs do not specifically identify the constitutional right at issue, and they do not allege that Defendants’ actions violated clearly-established law.
Cited 0 timesUnknownAnderson, Jr. v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2023
To make this determination, the ALJ used the multi-step evaluation process established by the Commissioner. … Thus, the question is whether the ALJ’s explanation for this credibility finding is “clearly articulated . . . with substantial supporting evidence in the record.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownKuilan v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 27, 2023
Guierrez Almodovar’s report multiple times and notates several findings, thus clearly evidencing that its contents were considered. (Tr. 32, 35, 37). … Guierrez Almodovar’s report as a basis for establishing disability under Table 12.15, Plaintiff does not address the evidence the Commissioner used in determining that Plaintiff did not meet the criteria for establishment
Cited 0 timesUnknownKolozs v. Commissioner of Social Security
District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 28, 2023
To make this determination, the ALJ used the multi-step evaluation process established by the Commissioner. See 20 C.F.R. … Thus, the question is whether the ALJ’s explanation for this credibility finding is “clearly articulated . . . with substantial supporting evidence in the record.”
Cited 0 timesUnknownDistrict Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 5, 2022
County engaged in a valid exercise of police powers and had afforded Plaintiff due process protections, the County committed a taking under federal and Florida law “by damaging the convenience store and gas pumps that clearly … That case was decided on the sole issue of qualified immunity.
Cited 0 timesUnknownKnight v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Duval County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 20, 2024
of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts given the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. … Accordingly, the Court finds 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
Cited 0 timesUnknownDimaio v. Jacksonville Sheriffs Office
District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 5, 2020
of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States. … Plaintiff should separately explain the facts giving rise to his individual claims for relief, and he should clearly state how each defendant is responsible for each alleged
Cited 0 timesUnknownMathurin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
285 F. Supp. 3d 1311 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 4, 2018
State Farm stated that the vehicle Decedent was driving at the time of the accident did not qualify for coverage under the liability portion of the policy and "[Decedent] [did] not meet the definition of an insured under … Logically, if an insurer pays the policy limits before the CRN is filed then its payment is clearly before the expiration of the sixty day period, thus precluding a bad faith action.
Cited 2 timesPublishedMoss v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)
District Court, M.D. Florida · May 3, 2022
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. … 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
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna