Case law

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 30, 2021

Accordingly, it cannot be said that the state court’s ruling was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law. See Washington v. … Crosby, 324 F.3d 1263, 1265 (11th Cir. 2003) (recognizing that a state court decision cannot be contrary to clearly established federal law “where no Supreme Court precedent is on point.”).

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · May 15, 2020

As such, federal courts may not grant habeas relief unless one of the claims: "(1)'was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined … Petitioner is not entitled to relief on this ground because the state court’s decision was not contrary to clearly established federal law, did not involve an unreasonable application of clearly

Lacroix v. Town of Fort Myers Beach, Florida

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 22, 2021

Movants must “clearly establish” each element. Callahan v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human Servs. Through Alex Azar II, 939 F.3d 1251, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019) (citation omitted). … signs anywhere within the Town without a permit, but it then exempted 23 categories of signs from that requirement, including ideological signs, political signs, and temporal directional signs related to a qualify

Zinsmeister v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. … A claimant need show only that his or her impairment is not so slight, and its effect is not so minimal, that it would clearly not be expected to interfere with his or her ability to work.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 7, 2021

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.

Allen v. First UNUM Life Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida · Oct 22, 2020

AJW Qualified Partners, LLC, 2011 NY Slip Op. 3043, 83 A.D.3d 804, 807, 921 N.Y.S.2d 260 (App. Div. 2nd Dept.), quoting Rut v. … “An agent is required to use reasonable skill and diligence, and liability may result from a negligent failure to obtain coverage which is specifically requested or clearly warranted by the

Polypack, Inc. v. Nestlé USA, Inc.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 18, 2026

And I think the answer is clearly no.” (Id. at 204:4-8). With this clarification, Nestlé agreed with the Court’s proposed way of responding to the jury’s question. (Id. at 204:9). … Accordingly, at trial, Polypack needed to establish that the SAT failures were caused by Nestlé.

Faiz v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 11, 2024

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).

Steverson v. Dixon

District Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 10, 2024

Wainwright, 802 F.2d 397, 400 (11th Cir. 1986) (concluding Secretary of Florida Department of Corrections, sued in official capacity, was immune from § 1983 suit under Eleventh Amendment). … Thus, the grievances are insufficient to establish that Defendant Dixon knew of and ignored the alleged constitutional deprivation. See, e.g., Zerby v.

Johnson v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 2, 2020

However, the prison stamp on Petitioner’s initial Rule 3.850 motion clearly shows it was filed in February 2014. Resp. Ex. N at 50. … However, “attorney negligence, even gross or egregious negligence, does not by itself qualify as an ‘extraordinary circumstance’ for purposes of equitable tolling; either abandonment of the attorney-client

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers-Transportation Division (SMART-TD)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 29, 2026

Manz’s qualified yet affirmative answer was not meant to provide commentary on the definition of a scheduled medical appointment. … “In this Circuit, ‘[a] preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to be granted unless the movant clearly established the burden of persuasion’ as to each of the four prerequisites.” Id.

Cordova Rosado v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 2, 2022

The ALJ did not err in identifying Plaintiff’s failure to seek physical therapy and take prescribed medications, as those factors qualify as additional evidence in support of the ALJ’s determination. … As to the first condition, Plaintiff was clearly within a few days to a few months of the next age category. See, e.g., Dubyna v. Colvin, No. 8:13–CV–1966–T–TGW, 2014 WL 4660363, at *8 (M.D. Fla.

Elbert v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 29, 2025

Thus, Elbert has failed to establish any error. … If the ALJ discredits this testimony, then the ALJ “must clearly articulate explicit and adequate reasons for doing so.” Ross v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 794 F.

Blackshear v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections (Clay County)

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 27, 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). … Defendant failed to establish that the jury was [not] impartial. See Brower v.

F & W Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. v. Cozart

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 23, 2024

While the date Robert became a Florida resident is disputed, it was clearly after the February 2020 resolution of the California Divorce Case. … As to retirement accounts, Robert concedes that California provides a “qualified” exemption but argues that Florida provides an “unlimited” exemption. (Doc. #51, p. 5 (citing Fla.

Canty v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

These regulations establish a “sequential evaluation process” to determine whether a claimant is disabled. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520, 416.920. … In support of this, the ALJ noted that Plaintiff overall had 4 Before engaging in RFC analysis, the ALJ first determined that Plaintiff’s symptoms did not qualify for analysis under Listing 11.02 for epilepsy (Tr. 113

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 23, 2024

Though Appellant insists there was insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of guilt for first degree murder, the record clearly demonstrates otherwise. … As such, the state court’s adjudication of this Strickland claim is neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.

SFR Services LLC v. Electric Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 30, 2021

Mentor Worldwide LLC, 940 F.3d 582, 593 (11th Cir. 2019) (explaining that a district court abuses its discretion under Rule 37 only when it “relies on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or an errant conclusion of law, … Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as informed by Daubert and its progeny, establishes the parameters for the admissibility of expert testimony. Rink v.

Denton v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

985 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Nov 22, 2013

The court, in a short opinion without any additional explanation, ruled that “the verdict is clearly contradictory in that the jury found negligence on the part of the plaintiff which was a legal cause of her damage but then … The verdict does not qualify as a compromise verdict, and the evidence does not suggest that the jury acted inappropriately- A new trial may be granted where the jury has rendered an improper “compromise verdict.”

Omni Healthcare Inc. v. North Brevard County Hospital District

District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 5, 2025

With respect to non-dispositive matters, the district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. … Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has simultaneously held that an individual qualified as an original source but did not plead fraud with particularity. See Cooper v.