Case law

Pope v. Crews

936 F. Supp. 2d 1331 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 26, 2013

Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 , 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) (“Terry Williams ”); Terry Williams, 529 U.S. at 391 , 120 S.Ct. 1495 (“It is past question that the rule set forth in Strickland qualifies as ‘clearly established … The Florida Supreme Court’s decision is an “unreasonable application” of clearly established law if it unreasonably extends or fails to extend a clearly established legal principle to a new context. See id.

Smart v. City of Miami

107 F. Supp. 3d 1271 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 27, 2015

ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … Furthermore, the contract between the City and first 48 clearly states that First 48 must receive the consent of the homeowner before they capture it on film.” (ECF No. 56 at 5).

Tillman v. Holy Cross Hospital

706 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 31, 1987

Plaintiff has failed to establish by competent, credible evidence that she was discriminated against because of her race. … The record clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff was terminated for poor performance, leaving her work station without permission and for threatening a supervisor.

Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. JOHN DOE subscriber assigned IP address 73.1.186.41

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

Plaintiff has also clearly identified the information sought through the requested discovery by providing Defendant’s IP address. See ECF No. [1-1]. … Because ISP qualifies as a “cable operator,” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 522(5),' ISP shall comply with 47 U.S.C. § 551(c)(2)(B),” by sending a copy of this Order to Defendant. 3.

Hazara Enterprises, Inc. v. Motiva Enterprises, LLC

126 F. Supp. 2d 1365 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 21, 2000

. § 2802 (c), in turn, enumerates a nonexclusive list of events that qualify as “relevant” within the meaning of this section. … Rood, 698 F.2d 435 (11th Cir.1983)(rejecting application of inducement exception to support admission of uncorroborated self serving testimony to establish an alleged oral agreement).

Doe v. State of Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission

748 F. Supp. 1520 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 28, 1990

He is also a licensed Florida attorney and consultant specializing in Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) issues. … In the instant case, the confidentiality rule as applied clearly does not satisfy two of the requisite elements for a valid time, place and manner restriction.

Managed Care Solutions, Inc. v. Essent Healthcare, Inc.

736 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Aug 23, 2010

The defendant agreed to, inter alia, “transfer all accounts, regardless of services, with a balance greater than $100 that have been denied by a Third Party Payor, within 72 hours of receipt of a qualified ‘denial’ on the … The party seeking the sanctions must establish all four of these factors where there is no direct evidence of bad faith.

Johnson v. Carnival Corporation

District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 6, 2020

In the Order, Judge Louis concluded that the Statements are not work product, and therefore not entitled to even qualified protection from disclosure. Order at 2. … Defendant argues that it has met its burden of establishing that the Statements are work product because the primary motivating purpose behind their creation is anticipation of litigation.

Sauquoit Fibers Co. v. Leesona Corp.

360 F. Supp. 74 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Apr 25, 1973

Stoddard, to urge the earliest invention date possible in order to qualify Seem and Stoddard as the original inventors. Leesona prevailed and evidently convinced that court as follows: . … , but the dicta was clearly labelled as such by insertion of the word “probably” in the footnote.

Freling v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance

315 F. Supp. 2d 1277 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 24, 2004

Within the applicable provision of the Policy, the term “regular occupation” is modified by the qualifier “his/her.” … Reliance clearly has a pecuniary interest in utilizing a broad construction of the Policy terms that would allow an automatic application of the DOT.

CWELT-2008 Series 1045 LLC v. PHH Corporation

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 27, 2020

actions do not qualify as ‘trade or commerce’”); Acosta v. … Upon review, the Court finds that it has a proper record before it to “affirmatively and clearly show[] the conclusive applicability” of the litigation privilege. Jackson v.

Revol v. Wellington Regional Medical Center

District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 16, 2020

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, an employee must show (1) that she has a disability, (2) that she is a “qualified individual,” and (3) that her employer unlawfully discriminated against her because of … Defendants also argue that Plaintiff is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA.

ALCALDE v. Carnival Cruise Lines

798 F. Supp. 2d 1314 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 2011

Rent-A-Center, however, clearly held that when a party challenges the enforceability of an agreement’s arbitration provision, then the district court will consider the challenge. … Importantly, however, the Bautista court never addressed whether precluding claims under U.S. law qualifies as an affirmative defense under the Convention because it is violative of U.S. public policy.

Floyd

District Court, S.D. Florida · May 7, 2026

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, a plaintiff must show: (1) that [he] belongs to a protected class, (2) that [he] was subjected to an adverse employment action, (3) that [he] was qualified to perform … Based on this record evidence, Highgate has clearly articulated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Floyd’s conditional employment.

Pitts Sales, Inc. v. King World Productions, Inc.

383 F. Supp. 2d 1354 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 28, 2005

The court established a three-part inquiry to determine whether a question of material fact remained as to the wiretap claim. Id. at 1577 . … Pitts Sales made no assumptions about how long a sales agent would remain with the company, as shown by the letters it provided to the sales agents’ parents stating that the sales agent “will know if [the sales agent] qualifies

Ford

District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 1, 2025

The creditor shall clearly and conspicuously disclose, in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, to any obligor in a transaction subject to this section the rights of the obligor under this section … Plaintiff’s equitable estoppel claim fails because she has not established that Defendant misrepresented any material facts.

Zuckerman v. Franz

573 F. Supp. 351 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 12, 1983

Ute did not eliminate reliance as an element of a 10b-5 omission case; it merely established a presumption that made it possible for the plaintiffs to meet their burden. … Although Paragraph 20 of the complaint does make reference to certain public filings by Heinicke, the allegations clearly state that these documents were only one portion of the fraudulent scheme.

RAUDEZ v. THE VILLAGE OF BISCAYNE PARK

District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 29, 2020

equal-protection violation claim or due-process claims under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; the conspiracy claim is barred by the intra-corporate-conspiracy doctrine (count seven); Ravelo is entitled to qualified … immunity; and Ravelo and Atesiano cannot be sued in their official capacities.

Gutter v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours

124 F. Supp. 2d 1291 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Sep 20, 2000

Upon review, the court finds that the factual findings are not clearly erroneous, and are thus set forth as follows. … The Hawaii Circuit Court clearly found that Dr.

Hamlett, Shawn v. Officer Desire

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 16, 2025

To qualify under the imminent danger exception, the Eleventh Circuit requires a pleading of “specific allegations of present imminent danger that may result in serious physical harm.” Brown v. … Dec. 7, 2021) (“Davis’s bare allegation that he was threatened with a knife twice in the past five weeks does not include specific allegations establishing a present imminent danger”); Skillern v. Paul, 202 F.