Case law

Johnson v. Jones

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 4, 2020

For these reasons, the Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication of this issue was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and it is not based on an unreasonable … The First DCA’s denial of Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

Wease v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 28, 2020

The phrase “clearly established Federal law,” encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. … The trial court did not consider the nol prossed charge of aggravated battery in determining that Petitioner qualified as a habitual felony offender.

Kang

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 10, 2026

If any impairment or combination of impairments qualifies as “severe,” step two is satisfied and the claim advances to step three. Gray v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 550 F. … If the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “‘must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for’ doing so.” Id. (quoting Dyer, 395 F.3d at 1210).

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 29, 2022

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

Tyntec Inc. v. Syniverse Technologies, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 29, 2020

Novell, 731 F.3d at 1079. tyntec clearly cannot satisfy Trinko’s profit-sacrifice test. … The record lopsidedly establishes that Syniverse retained a profit-seeking incentive throughout the entirety of Syniverse’s negotiations with tyntec.

Ash v. Daniel

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 8, 2020

days; deprivation of running water for two days; lack of soap, toothbrush, toothpaste, and linen; and the earlier occupancy of the cell by an inmate afflicted with an HIV virus” established … immunity). 38 F.3d at 1565, 1567.

Milligan v. Rambosk

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 29, 2022

With respect to whether Plaintiff’s ACP and PKD qualified as a “disability,” the Court found that a reasonable jury could conclude that Plaintiff’s ACP and PKD were disabilities which substantially … Though Defendant may disagree whether Plaintiff, as a matter of law, is “actually disabled” under the ADA and FCRA, it does not establish that the Court’s Order was clearly erroneous.

Cunningham v. Cunningham

237 F. Supp. 3d 1246 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 17, 2017

Significantly, Matsuno qualified her analysis by explaining that it was based on domestic parental abductions. … that such order would be clearly inappropriate.

Lenoir v. Love

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 5, 2024

Section 1915(e)(2)(B)@) 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.” … As such, Lenoir does not plausibly establish that the search was unreasonable and amounted to a constitutional violation. See United States v.

Travelers Indemnity Co. of Connecticut v. Attorney's Title Insurance Fund, Inc.

194 F. Supp. 3d 1224 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 7, 2016

Plaintiffs continued to inquire regarding ATIF’s urgent 10-day deadline and encouraged ATIF to bring it into any settlement negotiations if there is a possibility that any claim would arise, as the motion ATIF provided did not qualify … Clearly, Section 10 misinterprets the privilege. 10 Based on the foregoing, the undisputed material facts show Plaintiffs did not have a duty to indemnify ATIF.

Roberson v. Crawford

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 3, 2022

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. … (quotation omitted).[4] An inmate-plaintiff bears the burden to establish both prongs. Goebert v.

Keene v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 22, 2024

impairment or a combination of impairments that together qualify as severe, is enough to satisfy the requirement of step two.” … The Eleventh Circuit has established a three-part “pain standard” for the Commissioner to apply in evaluating a claimant’s subjective complaints.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2025

“The 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.” Bell v. … The phrase “clearly established Federal law” encompasses only the holdings of the United States Supreme Court “as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams, 529 U.S. at 412.

Grimage v. Acevedo

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

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. … To establish an Eighth Amendment violation, a prisoner must satisfy both an objective and subjective inquiry regarding a prison official’s conduct. Swain v.

Kaplan v. Regions Bank

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

Kaplan also stated in response to an interrogatory that the transactions “clearly would have appeared to any experienced bank to be a check kiting operation.” … To the contrary, based on the evidentiary record, Regions clearly meets the low standard needed to show that it had a reasonable belief in the validity of the claim.

Grebenor v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 8, 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 … Petitioner has not shown that the state courts’ rejection of Ground One was contrary to clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.

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

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

Sperry Associates Federal Credit Union v. Space Coast Credit Union

877 F. Supp. 2d 1227 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 3, 2012

With respect to Eastern Financial’s alleged negligence, its decision to retain Klein for this transaction was clearly reasonable. … maintains that Realty Valuation Advisors was an appraisal firm with significant experience in real estate, and each of the individual signatories of the 2006 Appraisal, Raymond Veal, Bra-ford Johnson, and Bruce Throdahl, were qualified

Langenbach v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 15, 2021

combine their periods of coverage to establish entitlement to social security benefits. … Moreover, Plaintiff contends that the ALJ’s failure to address the first issue is clearly harmful.

Bonita v. United States

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2019

The government asserts Petitioner’s claim fails because he had at least two qualifying controlled substance offenses at the time of his sentencing and, therefore, he qualified for a sentence enhancement … Although the recording was clearly important to the government’s case, this was not an instance where a determination of guilt rested solely on this recording.