Case law

McKenzie v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 2, 2023

The ALJ is clearly authorized to consider the plaintiff’s activities of daily living in evaluating allegations of disability. See Macia v. … At step two, the ALJ found that McKenzie’s alleged loss of visual acuity was not established by objective medical evidence. (Tr. 19.)

Escalante v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Collier County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 21, 2023

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 court issued its decision … 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

O'Neal v. American Shaman Franchise Systems, Inc.

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

The Shaman Defendants and the Magistrate Judge both read this more specific language to establish an exception to the general clause’s prior written notice requirement. R&R at 13–14; Resp. (Doc. 413) at 2–8. … But that obligation is qualified by the more specific carveout clause, expressly offset with the phrase “[b]y way of clarification, however,” to highlight the contradiction.

Santiago-Martinez v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 8, 2021

Third, Plaintiff asserts the ALJ improperly rejected his testimony “when the record clearly reveals that [] Plaintiff suffered from documented 7 Plaintiff characterizes Mr. … licensed optometrists, licensed podiatrists, and qualified speech-language pathologists. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1502(a).9 The Regulations establish a hierarchy among medical opinions

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 1, 2023

If the claim was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of the claim unless the state court’s decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … 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.

Griffin v. Wainwright

588 F. Supp. 1549 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 21, 1984

Estelle, 609 F.2d 756, 759 (5th Cir.1980) (“[B]revity of time spent in consultation, without more, does not establish that counsel was ineffective.”). … State, 439 So.2d 840, 844 (Fla.1983) (circumstantial evidence may establish premeditation).

Bei Jing Han Tong San Kun Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si v. Atlantic Medical Products, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 27, 2023

A court has the power to exclude evidence in limine only when evidence is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds.” Id., quoting Luce v. … Judge Tuite did not make a finding that Llopiz had violated the terms of his release, because the testimony at the evidentiary hearing did not establish that he engaged in witness tampering, intimidation, or obstruction

Leuzzi

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 17, 2025

First, the Court addresses whether Defendant is immune from suit arising from its disclosures to the DOH. (Id. at 6). … In Florida, a court may consider any affirmative defense in resolving a motion to dismiss “when the complaint affirmatively and clearly shows the conclusive applicability of the defense to bar the action.”

Southstar Capital Group, I, LLC v. 1662 Multifamily LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 8, 2019

The quintessential “unreviewable” order is an order that deprives a litigant of their right “not to be tried” based on immunity. Id. at 499–500. … To stay bankruptcy court proceedings pursuant to Rule 8005, [T]he movant must clearly establish: (i) that the movant is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal, (ii) that the movant will suffer irreparable

Fitzsimmons v. Biomet Orthopedics

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 18, 2020

involves tradeoffs,” and that surgeons are justified in attempting to restore the normal biomechanics of the patient’s hip joint using standard techniques unless they are clearly … We have now established what the appropriate chromium levels are.

Foster v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 13, 2020

Thus, in order to qualify for disability benefits, the impairment must “meet[] the duration requirement specified in the federal regulations.” Shinn ex rel. Shinn v. … Additionally, the MRI report does not establish the severity of the impairments.

Slichter v. The School Board of Lee County, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 7, 2022

LeMaster clearly evince “personnel action” against Ms. Slichter that includes “documentation of [Ms. Slichter’s] violation of a disciplinary standard or performance deficiency.” Fla. Stat. § 112.3187(9)(f). … Slichter would have it, section 112.3187(9)(f) merely precludes temporary reinstatement when an otherwise qualifying disclosure is made after an adverse personnel action provided it is accompanied by documentation of that

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2023

If the claim was “adjudicated on the merits” in state court, § 2254(d) bars relitigation of the claim unless the state court’s decision (1) “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established … Id. 20 unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and was not based on an unreasonable determination of the facts

Griffiin v. Inch

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 25, 2023

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 … The rejection of this claim was neither contrary to Biggers or any other clearly established law and was not based upon an unreasonable determination of the facts.

Wright v. AR Resources, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 31, 2020

Wright responds that PARC (1) holds itself out as a debt collector through its website and numerous lawsuits; (2) is clearly a debt collector due to its purchase of the debt here and subsequent … If you contact this office on receipt of this letter you may qualify for a payment plan. If you do not call, the balance will be pursued in full, including collection costs.”

Peeler v. Secretary, Department of Corrections (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 27, 2023

Upon thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal … Upon thorough review of the record, this Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly established federal

Israel v. City of Tampa

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 21, 2023

ADA Discrimination (Count I) The ADA prohibits discrimination in employment “against a qualified individual on the basis of disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … An employer’s deviation from its own standard procedures, or its failure to articulate clearly and consistently the reason for an employee’s discharge, may serve as evidence of pretext. Hurlbert v. St.

King

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 4, 2026

need not issue an opinion explaining its rationale for the state court’s decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). … This statement is not clearly erroneous. The murder likely occurred between 4:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on June 8, 2010. Id. at 316. Petitioner’s mother saw him at her house at 1:00 a.m., but he was gone by 3:30 a.m.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 26, 2024

decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). … Upon thorough review of the record, the Court finds that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law.

Johnson v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 18, 2022

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. App’x 850, 852 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Jamison v. … 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).