TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law
86,322 cases · browse · 0.15 s
  1. 770 F.2d 1084 Eleventh Circuit August 5, 1985 No. 84-3196
    Not cited

    770 F.2d 1084 Griffin v. Wainwright 84-3196 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. 8/5/85 M.D.Fla., 760 F.2d 1505

  2. 773 F.2d 1237 Eleventh Circuit September 4, 1985 No. 84-5693
    Not cited

    773 F.2d 1237 U.S. v. Lopez-Perez 84-5693 United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. 9/4/85 1 S.D.Fla. AFFIRMED

  3. 7 F.4th 1046 Eleventh Circuit August 4, 2021 No. 19-11156

    USCA11 Case: 19-11156 Date Filed: 08/04/2021 Page: 1 of 21 [PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-11156 ________________________ Agency No. A091-443-372 CHARLES KEVIN SIMPSON, Petitioner

  4. Eleventh Circuit October 20, 2025 No. 24-10478
    Not cited Unpublished

    USCA11 Case: 24-10478 Document: 50-1 Date Filed: 10/20/2025 Page: 1 of 27 NOT FOR PUBLICATION In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 24-10478 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ROBERT W. OTTO,

  5. 157 F.3d 1259 Eleventh Circuit October 14, 1998 No. 97-8592

    HATCHETT, Chief Judge: In this appeal, we address an issue of first impression in the circuits: whether corporate insiders’ exercise of stock appreciation rights for cash from their employing company implicates the insider trading laws of §§ 10(b), 20(d) and

  6. 769 F.2d 672 Eleventh Circuit August 6, 1985 No. 84-8327
    Cited by 27 Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part · Young

    GEORGE C. YOUNG, District Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part: While concurring in the Court’s analysis and conclusion on each of the Sandstrom and the closing argument issues, I disagree that the petitioner is entitled to relief based on an alleged

  7. 760 F.2d 1148 Eleventh Circuit May 20, 1985 No. 84-5377
    Cited by 6 Dissent · Hill

    *1154 JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge dissenting: The rule of law announced in this case is sound. See Hutchins v. Wainwright, 715 F.2d 512 (11th Cir.1983). I believe, however, that its application upon the facts of this record is misplaced. I therefore dissent

  8. 760 F.2d 1231 Eleventh Circuit May 21, 1985 No. 84-3591
    Cited by 67 Dissent · Fay

    FAY, Circuit Judge, dissenting: Most respectfully, I disagree that the clause before us is subject to two interpretations or is ambiguous. The contract provision reads, “Place of jurisdiction is Sao Paulo/Brazil.” (emphasis added) Place is singular. Is is singular

  9. 454 F.3d 1300 Eleventh Circuit July 10, 2006 No. 04-13977

    454 F.3d 1300 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David E. MARTINELLI, Defendant-Appellant. No. 04-13977. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. July 10, 2006. COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED Edward T.M. Garland

  10. 777 F.2d 621 Eleventh Circuit February 10, 1986 No. 84-8481
    Cited by 32 Concurrence · Tjoflat

    TJOFLAT, Circuit Judge, specially concurring: I would dismiss this appeal for want of a final judgment; the district court’s dispositive order, granting a portion of the habeas relief petitioner requested, did not dispose of all of petitioner’s claims. My view

  11. 763 F.2d 1374 Eleventh Circuit June 25, 1985 No. 83-8470

    JOHNSON, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff below, Ernest Menendez, appeals from an order of the district court directing a verdict in favor of the appellees, Perishable Distributors, Inc., and Edgar Newton Crowe, Jr. Menendez claims the district court erroneously allowed

  12. 975 F.2d 1518 Eleventh Circuit October 28, 1992 Nos. 91-3295, 91-3338

    KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: This case consists of two consolidated appeals resulting from a lawsuit filed by Karen Miranda Hopewell (“Miranda” or “plaintiff”) against B & B Cash Grocery Store, Inc. (“B & B” or “defendant”), alleg *1522 ing gender-based discrimination

  13. 966 F.2d 1383 Eleventh Circuit July 22, 1992 No. 90-3462
    Cited by 40 Dissent · Roney

    RONEY, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting in part: I concur in all of the court’s opinion except the decision that the concealed possession of the toy gun requires sentence enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B3.1(b)(2)(C) (Nov.1989). The commentary defining a dangerous

  14. 967 F.2d 516 Eleventh Circuit August 3, 1992 No. 90-7108

    KRAVITCH, Circuit Judge: Patricia Davis was one of séveral Alabama legislators investigated for taking bribes. She was convicted by a jury of four counts of violating the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951 . She appeals the district court’s failure to grant her a continuance

  15. 990 F.2d 598 Eleventh Circuit May 10, 1993 No. 91-7977
    Cited by 22 Concurrence · Birch

    BIRCH, Circuit Judge, Specially concurring: While I concur in the result in this case, I am persuaded that the determinative Alabama law is subject to more than one reasonable interpretation. Seasoned Alabama judges, albeit on the federal bench, differ in their

  16. 903 F.2d 1368 Eleventh Circuit May 29, 1990 No. 89-8258
    Cited by 13 Concurrence · Tjoflat

    TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, concurring: I concur in the court’s opinion: it is an accurate account of this circuit’s law. I write separately simply to express my continuing dissatisfaction with this court’s distortion of the final judgment rule in cases such as Blake

  17. 688 F. App'x 854 Eleventh Circuit June 5, 2017 No. 16-14558 Non-Argument Calendar
    Not cited Unpublished

    PER CURIAM: Randall Milner appeals from his sentence of eight months’ imprisonment followed by a life term of supervised release, imposed after committing four violations of the terms of his original supervised release. On appeal, Milner contends the district

  18. Eleventh Circuit December 1, 2020 No. 19-13989
    Not cited Unpublished

    USCA11 Case: 19-13989 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 Page: 1 of 13 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13989 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cr-

  19. Eleventh Circuit December 1, 2020 No. 19-13178
    Not cited Unpublished

    USCA11 Case: 19-13178 Date Filed: 12/01/2020 Page: 1 of 17 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 19-13178 ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 4:18-cv-00188-RSB-CLR JUSTIN OLTMANNS

  20. 354 F.3d 1301 Eleventh Circuit December 22, 2003 No. 02-13155
    Not cited

    354 F.3d 1301 ADMIRAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. CRESENT HILLS APARTMENTS, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Cross-Claimant-Appellant, Bauer Agency, Inc., Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Cross-Claimant-Cross-Defendant-Appellee

Showing the top 500 cases. Narrow your search or add filters to see more.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list