Case 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).

Allen v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 22, 2022

"Evidence is excluded upon a motion in limine only if the evidence is clearly inadmissible for any purpose." Id. … Allen alleges that defendants breached the four Individual Policies by (1) terminating the payment of benefits despite his continuing qualifying total disability, and (2) not acting in

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.

Stewart v. Inch (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 7, 2023

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, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). … For these reasons, the Court concludes that the state court’s adjudication of this claim was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law, and it is not based on an unreasonable

Phillips v. Harbor Venice Management, LLC

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

To establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that (1) she has a disability, (2) she is a qualified individual … her (e.g., the nurse with breast cancer granted certain allowances, other employees allowed to work from home or allowed to take off work with little advance notice), she does not clearly

Blake v. Harrell

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 26, 2022

immunity; and (5) the Eleventh Amendment bars any claim for damages against Defendants in their official capacities. … Burnside we established a two-step process for resolving motions to dismiss prisoner lawsuits for failure to exhaust. 541 F.3d at 1082.

Gutierrez

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

The district court overruled Gutierrez’s objections that Shire and Conde were not qualified to testify as experts under Rules 702 and 705, Fed. R. Evid., and Daubert v. … Additionally, the risk of deportation was clearly a concern at the time Petitioner rejected the plea offer. See Civ.

Wilder v. State Of Florida (Duval County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 7, 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. … 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.

Sims v. BMW of North America LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 4, 2025

Defendants cite no evidence establishing that Takata admits in the claim to having defectively designed the airbag inflator. … conviction or conviction involving dishonesty or false statement, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness’s conduct or to attack his character for truthfulness.5 Traffic citations do not qualify

Balaban

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jan 5, 2026

a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that (1) she belongs to a protected class, (2) she was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) she was qualified to perform the … Plaintiff has clearly stated an equal protection claim which requires her to establish similarly situated male comparators.

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

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

The Defendant cannot establish prejudice because the totality of the evidence clearly shows his guilt and none of trial counsel’s alleged errors would have put the case in such … 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 law,

Huguenard

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 15, 2026

“An unfair practice [under FDUTPA] is one that offends established public policy and one that is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.” Wesley Fin. Grp., LLC v. … The alleged omissions also qualify as an unfair practice under FDUTPA because a failure to disclose material facts regarding a product’s safety for its intended use clearly is “substantially injurious to consumers

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 9, 2023

Ct. at 1194. 22 adjudication of this claim was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly … 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.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 7, 2023

Thus, an evidentiary hearing will not be conducted. 2 decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. … Thus, upon review of the record, 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

Daley v. Florida Blue

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

Although some of these actions may be sufficient to qualify as adverse employment actions, he does not link the actions to his supervisor’s statements. … The Eleventh Circuit has “noted that judicial claims are allowed if they ‘amplify, clarify, or more clearly focus’ the allegations in the EEOC complaint, but [have] cautioned that allegations of new acts of discrimination

Wirth v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 19, 2020

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520. … A reviewing court will not disturb a clearly articulated finding regarding a claimant’s subjective complaints supported by substantial evidence in the record. Foote v.

Schneider

District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 22, 2022

Qualifying claims are "those arising from any embezzlement, loss, or destruction of any property, goods, or merchandise shipped or put on board the vessel, any loss, damage, or injury by … "The damage claimants bear the initial burden of establishing liability (i.e., negligence or unseaworthiness), and the shipowner then bears the burden of establishing the lack of privity or knowledge

Simmons v. United States

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

And Simmons has not established that Crawford or Cox were ineffective. He is therefore not entitled to relief. … Felony violations of § 641 qualify as predicate offenses for aggravated identity theft. See 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(c)(1); United States v. Wilson, 788 F.3d 1298, 1311 (11th Cir. 2015).

Dewees, II v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 4, 2022

establishes a two-step analysis for determining the appropriate hourly rate to be applied in calculating attorney’s fees under the Act.” Meyer v. Sullivan, 958 F.2d 1029, 1033 (11th Cir. 1992). … To do otherwise amounts to awarding interest for which the United States has not waived sovereign immunity. Id.; accord United States v.

Sher v. Raytheon Co.

261 F.R.D. 651 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 30, 2009

FAG Bearings Corp., 846 F.Supp. 1400, 1403-04 (W.D.Mo.1994) (denying certification of Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive class because defendant had previously discontinued *667 use of contaminant and the injunction sought was “clearly … “The predominance inquiry focuses on the legal or factual questions that qualify each class member’s case as a genuine controversy, and is far more demanding than Rule 23(a)’s commonality requirement.”