Case law

Sesler v. Commissioner of Social Security

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

At the fifth step, there are two ways in which the ALJ may establish whether the claimant is capable of performing other work available in the national economy. … The Commissioner argues that there is nothing ambiguous about the word “stand” or “walk” and both clearly reference being on one’s feet.

Brown v. BellSouth Telecommunications Inc.

73 F. Supp. 2d 1308 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 4, 1999

Clearly the idea of returning to her previous place of employment is objectionable to her and resolution of whether or not she will return to work should remove some stress from the current situation. … That statutory section, however, does not establish a standard of judicial review. The Supreme Court, in Firestone Tire and Rubber Co. v.

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

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

Andrews v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

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

The state court need not issue a written opinion explaining its rationale in order for the state court’s decision to qualify as an adjudication on the merits. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86, 100 (2011). … 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

Altamonte Pediatric Associates, P.A. v. Greenway Health, LLC

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

pediatricians and nurses from qualifying for $68,000 in incentive payments.” (Id.). Altamonte filed this class action in this Court on March 13, 2020. … Although in its response, Altamonte attempts to couch its fraud claim as one for fraudulent inducement, it fails to state clearly, let alone with particularity, that any fraud occurred

Aguirre v. Secretary, Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 6, 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). … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Delivery Kick Holdings, Inc. v. RJ Brooksher LLC and Riley Brooksher

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 14, 2026

An expert can be qualified to testify about certain matters based on his scientific training, education, knowledge, or experience in the field. Id. at 1260–61. … at 8, or that “[e]ven if the [food delivery application] is validly solely possessed by RJB, it was clearly provided and de-facto licensed to DKH to operate in the DKH AWS production environment.”

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Liebowitz

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 21, 2022

approved the following test for examining responses to questions asked according to the applicant’s knowledge and belief: The twin qualifiers … Liebowitz clearly knew the two questions at issue were relevant and material, since he was applying for an occupational disability policy. In January 2015, when Dr.

Buckman v. Winningham

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

Further, as established by McGregor’s sworn declaration, a grievance system was in place at FSP at the relevant time. Doc. 15-1 at 42. … The Court presumes a grievance concerning the denial of mental health services would qualify as a medical grievance, and Buckman could bypass the informal grievance stage.

Jackson v. City of Cape Coral

District Court, M.D. Florida · Feb 1, 2024

In other words, “[w]e do not ask whether the employer selected the ‘most’ qualified candidate, but only whether it selected the candidate based on an unlawful motive.” … Mulhall, 19 F.3d at 598 (“Clearly, if plaintiff makes a prima facie case under the EPA, she simultaneously establishes facts necessary to go forward on a Title VII claim.”

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 26, 2023

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 … 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.”

Cottingim v. Reliastar Life Insurance Company

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

To qualify for benefits, the insured must “be receiving regular and appropriate care and treatment.” Id. … And the deemer clause establishes that “[n]either an employee benefit plan ..., nor any trust established under such plan, shall be deemed to be an insurance company ... engaged

United States v. Weisman

489 F. Supp. 1331 · District Court, M.D. Florida · May 15, 1980

The time required is clearly within the discretion of the District Engineer. … Clearly some specific remedy is required. The Court now moves to consideration of the proposed plans in terms of their benefits.

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

District Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 5, 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). … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Pratt v. Government Employees Insurance Company

District Court, M.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2023

Clearly, an insurer’s failure to settle would not be the cause of a resulting excess judgment if the claimant was unwilling to settle. Eads v. … This final judgment thus qualifies as an excess judgment for the purposes of this bad faith suit. Potter v. Progressive Am. Ins. Co., No. 21-11134, 2022 WL 2525721, at *2 (11th Cir.

Carpezzi v. U.S. Department of Justice

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

Records by a law enforcement agency must meet two criteria to qualify as law enforcement records: (1) the agency’s investigatory activities giving rise to the documents must relate to the enforcement of federal laws or … Sept. 16, 2014), the Court found that although a legitimate law enforcement purpose was established, the FBI failed to establish a nexus between the documents at issue and that purpose.

Sompo Japan Nipponkoa Insurance, Inc. v. CSX Corp.

District Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 3, 2020

In addition, on the website, the data provided for both the annual revenue and the number of employees are qualified with a signifier that the information is “Modelled.” … Here, the Operative Complaint fails to include sufficient jurisdictional allegations to establish that SIRS and SSC are alter egos.

Pods Enterprises, LLC v. U-Haul International, Inc.

126 F. Supp. 3d 1263 · District Court, M.D. Florida · Aug 24, 2015

Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 618 F.3d 1025, 1042 (9th Cir.2010) (alleged infringer’s use of trademarked phrase in light of “abundance of alternative words” relevant when considering whether it qualified for … Accordingly, the proposed injunction will be revised to allow for comparative advertising that clearly designates PODS as the source of moving and storage containers that compete with U-Haul’s products.

Fudge

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

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. Harrington v. … state court has adjudicated a petitioner’s claims on the merits, a federal court cannot grant habeas relief unless the state court’s adjudication of the claim was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly

Kaiser v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections

District Court, M.D. Florida · Sep 10, 2020

App’x 829, 832 (11th Cir. 2010) (“[T]here is no clearly established federal law by the Supreme Court specifically addressing whether the federal court should examine the prejudice on appeal rather than at trial in a case … She stated that from her doorway, she could clearly see Petitioner and another neighbor, Neville Barrett, arguing outside. Id. at 336- 38.