Case law

Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State of Fla.

801 F. Supp. 655 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 18, 1992

the States’ immunity; see Pennsylvania v. … New Mexico, 490 U.S. 163, 192 , 109 S.Ct. 1698, 1715-16 , 104 L.Ed.2d 209 (1989), where the Supreme Court observed that “[i]t is also well established that the Interstate Commerce and Indian Commerce Clauses have very different

Doe v. Miami-Dade County

797 F. Supp. 2d 1296 · District Court, S.D. Florida · May 23, 2011

Thus, the plaintiff cannot establish the County was negligent in its “operational capacity.” … But the only defendant remaining in this lawsuit is the County, and the principles of sovereign immunity and qualified immunity combine to make it impossible for the plaintiff to succeed in her claims in the Third Amended

Alejandre v. Republic of Cuba

42 F. Supp. 2d 1317 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 18, 1999

Congress therein expressly waived the jurisdictional immunity of terrorist foreign states, and also their immunity from attachment or execution. … The instrumentality is typically established as a separate juridical entity, with the powers to hold and sell property and to sue and be sued.

White v. Miami-Dade County

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 19, 2024

“Qualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable … To prove that Patterson is not entitled to qualified immunity, Plaintiff must show (1) Patterson violated a constitutional right and (2) “that right was clearly established.” Id.

Brown v. Williams

District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 14, 2021

immunity because they have not violated a clearly established right. … “Generally speaking, it is proper to grant a motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds when the ‘complaint fails to allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional right.’” Corbitt v.

Shubert Construction Co. v. Seminole Tribal Housing Authority

490 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 9, 1980

Although plaintiff argues that the Tribe has waived immunity, that issue need not be determined. … There the Court clearly stated that the only type of action authorized by the ICRA was a writ of habeas corpus as provided in § 1303.

Economic Development Corp. v. Stierheim

606 F. Supp. 108 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Nov 30, 1984

However, before deciding whether or not the Plaintiff, in fact, has a legitimate claim of entitlement to the contract between itself and the County, which might establish a constitutionally protected property interest, see … The answer is clearly, yes.

Spanish International Communications Corp. v. Leibowitz

608 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 26, 1985

As to all the remaining subparagraphs under Paragraph 22, there are no sufficient statements of fact to establish antitrust violations. … On a more substantive constitutional level, the Amended Complaint must fail under established antitrust doctrine.

Lex Tex Ltd. v. ARCT, Inc.

462 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 20, 1978

Another established rule of contract interpretation, however, is that courts may look to subsequent action of the parties to determine the interpretation that they themselves placed on the contractual language.” … However, if the affidavit of Conrad is to be given any weight, the issue can be more clearly seen as going to the intent and motivation of LEX TEX.

Ocean Cove Corp. Retirement Plan & Trust v. United States

657 F. Supp. 776 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 19, 1987

The Plaintiff is a qualified pension trust fund established by a written agreement of trust between Ocean Cove Corporation, a Florida Corporation, employer, and a named trustee. … Although this Court is in agreement that the facts of this case, which involves a qualified pension plan, comes much closer to establishing the “substantial relationship” test than did these other cases, the fact remains

Alvi Armani Medical, Inc. v. Hennessey

629 F. Supp. 2d 1302 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Dec 9, 2008

As such language clearly indicates, the definition of “trade or commerce” is quite broad. … The purpose of the CDA is to establish “federal immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for information originating with a third-party user of the service.” Almeida v.

Sanchez v. OBANDO-ECHEVERRY

716 F. Supp. 2d 1195 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 31, 2010

Since Defendants raised a qualified immunity defense that applied to Officer Obando only, Plaintiffs two claims have proceeded on somewhat different tracks. … The Court denied Officer Obando’s motion to dismiss on qualified immunity grounds because the allegations, when construed in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, could reasonably lead to the conclusion

Flaherty v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd.

172 F. Supp. 3d 1348 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Mar 23, 2016

A.Count One: Negligent Failure to Warn It is clearly established that cruise lines owe their passengers a duty to warn of known or foreseeable dangers. … “[W]here [a] menace is ... encountered on land and [is] not clearly linked to nautical adventure,” Keefe v.

United States v. Klein

312 B.R. 443 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jun 10, 2004

Adopting a per se rule renders the Honest and Reasonable Attempt prong of the well-established Beard test meaningless. … The Bankruptcy Court relied on an IRS news release regarding the agency’s voluntary disclosure program, which is not intended to serve as an amnesty or grant of immunity.

Tennant v. Florida

111 F. Supp. 2d 1326 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jan 13, 2000

Section 768/28, Florida Statutes, Does Not Waive Florida’s Sovereign Immunity Plaintiff “concedes that the established law as prescribed by the United States Supreme Court is that unless a state consents to being sued a suit … Despite the City’s clearly stated policy, plaintiff argues that the officers are trained to ignore the policy and only handcuff behind the back.

City of Fort Lauderdale v. Scott

773 F. Supp. 2d 1355 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Feb 28, 2011

Individual Defendant Battle Defendant Battle argues that the Counterclaim violates Rule 10 by not differentiating claims against Battle, an individual defendant who has a right to claim qualified immunity to the § 1983 claims … immunity.

In re Extradition of Berrocal

263 F. Supp. 3d 1280 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Jul 7, 2017

Martinelli argued that- he “generally has immunity for crimes committed during his presidency,” [D.E. 18 at 9], He claimed that this article “clearly applies to the ‘wiretapping’ crimes charged here (i.e., interception of … -Immunity is a defense Pres..Martinelli may raise if he is tried in Panama, but it is not relevant at this stage.

ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson

591 F. Supp. 2d 1272 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 1, 2008

STANDARD FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that should be granted only if Plaintiffs clearly established their “burden of persuasion.” McDonald’s Corp. v. … White, 941 F.2d 201 , 215 (3d Cir.1991) (Eleventh Amendment bar to an award of retroactive damages against the commonwealth clearly establishes that any legal remedy is unavailable and that the only relief available is equitable

Johnson v. Broward County Sheriff

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

To overcome the qualified immunity defense, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the official deprived him of a constitutional right that was “clearly established” when the alleged offense occurred. See Saucier v. … “An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment.” Pearson, 555 U.S. 223, 243- 244 (2009).

Tobinick v. Novella

142 F. Supp. 3d 1275 · District Court, S.D. Florida · Oct 2, 2015

Both articles clearly state their intent to raise public awareness about issues pertaining to Plaintiffs’ treatments. Thus, the First and Second Articles can only potentially qualify as commercial speech under Bolger . … “Accordingly, courts have applied elements from other established claims to unfair competition claims, where appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.” Id.