Case law

Barfield v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 25, 2024

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.

Grassfire LLC v. Laws

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 28, 2021

Those were not clearly proven. The trade secret usurpation was illusory. … Plaintiff has not “clearly carried,” id., its burden.

Edwards v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 10, 2023

Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 108 (1977) (“This provision clearly limits judicial review to a particular type of agency action, a ‘final decision of the Secretary made after a hearing.’” … In a notice dated June 18, 2021, the Agency informed Plaintiff that he did not qualify for SSI payments because he was found not disabled. (Docs. 19 ¶ 5; 19-2.)

McKinnon v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 16, 2024

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.

Davis v. Secretary, Department of Corrections(Sarasota)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 22, 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

Lundy

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 23, 2026

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 … Wilson, 584 U.S. at 125. 14 clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state

Williams v. United States

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 1, 2020

Accordingly, the law and the record establish that Williams properly qualified as a career offender because his Louisiana conviction fell within the definition of a controlled substance offense. … Williams contends that Falcon and his next attorney, Clifford Stripling, “both launched a scheme to keep money from the movant that was clearly not earned in the case of Mr. Falcon [sic] part.” Id.

WILLIAM J. HOLMES, JR. v. PNC BANK, N.A.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2026

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, the plaintiff must allege that he “(1) is disabled; (2) is a qualified individual; and (3) was discriminated against because of his disability.”9 Beasley v. … A protected activity under the FMLA includes requesting or taking qualifying FMLA leave. 15 See 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(1), (c).

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 30, 2023

App’x 366, 367 68 (11th Cir. 2009) (“[E]ven restricted access to a law library, lock-downs, and solitary confinement do not qualify as [extra]ordinary circumstances warranting equitable tolling.”). … Because the application is clearly time-barred, Ballone is entitled to neither a COA nor leave to appeal in forma pauperis. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

Club Exploria, LLC v. Aaronson, Austin, P.A.

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

A transaction less than $10,000 does not qualify. See United States v. … But Plaintiffs have not established a basis for Aaronson P.A. itself to be liable as a RICO “person,” as the only “enterprise” that Plaintiffs allege is Aaronson P.A. itself. See generally United States v.

Petersen v. Florida Bar

720 F. Supp. 2d 1351 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 28, 2010

At any rate, from a fair reading of the rules, it is evident that the peer review process is not a mere formality; to the contrary, the rules state that “[a]n applicant otherwise qualified may be denied certification on the … Florida law. 10 *1362 Petersen alleges no intimidation, coercion or deception by defendants, and he clearly had a meaningful choice, to-wit: He could have elected to practice law without a re-certification, just as untold

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 18, 2024

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.”

Harris v. Jones (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 14, 2022

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 clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

Young v. Panera, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 20, 2025

To establish a prima facie claim for the recovery of past medical expenses, a plaintiff “must establish that he incurred medical expenses, that the incurrence of these medical expenses was necessary, and that the … (Dkt. 149 at 15) Plaintiffs’ “detailed description[s] of the treatment procedures clearly related the [treatment] to the accident.” Easton v.

Williams v. Jones (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2021

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. … of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

Tyler v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Desoto)

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

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 the … To the extent this claim was exhausted, the state court’s rejection of the claim was neither contrary to clearly established federal law nor based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Centennial Bank v. ServisFirst Bank Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 10, 2021

To illustrate what qualifies as a pure opinion, the Supreme Court in Milkovich v. … Bryant is clearly a public figure for a limited purpose, his participation in the banking industry. As such, for liability to exist there must be a showing that Mr.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 9, 2024

of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. … of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented.

Streit v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America

374 F. Supp. 2d 1109 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 24, 2005

Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 , 109 S.Ct. 948 , 103 L.Ed.2d 80 , (1989), the Supreme Court established three distinct standards under ERISA for reviewing decisions by plan administrators. … Plaintiff clearly satisfied these conditions by meeting with Dr. Atkinson on September 20 and 27, 2001, and with Dr. Fairchild for significant and frequent treatments *1115 throughout the appeals process.

Stewart v. Underwriters at Lloyd's, London

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 26, 2025

And she is not yet qualified to obtain a driver’s license in Costa Rica. (Doc. 26-4 at 28). … Congress would be hard-pressed to use language more clearly indicating its intent to create an exhaustive list than ‘any…except.’”). A remand motion is not among the eight exceptions.