This legal document presents an appeal in the case of Labriola v. Miami-Dade County, heard by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. John Labriola, a former media aide, sued Miami-Dade County after being suspended and fired for an opinion piece critical of the Equality Act, which used inflammatory language. He claimed his First Amendment rights—free speech, free exercise, and free press—were violated, that he was compelled to speak, and that the County's anti-discrimination policy was unconstitutionally overbroad. The Appeals Court upheld the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to the County, finding that Labriola's speech interests did not outweigh the County's need for efficient operations, his free press and compelled speech claims lacked merit, and his overbreadth challenge was unsubstantiated.

This document is an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit regarding a lawsuit where ECB USA, Inc., and Atlantic Ventures Corp. (the buyers) sued Savencia Cheese USA, LLC, and several individuals (the sellers). The buyers alleged fraud and related torts against the sellers and tortious interference against Savencia Cheese after a business acquisition of a cheese distribution company went awry. The district court dismissed the claims, citing a lack of personal jurisdiction over the sellers and the buyers' failure to sufficiently state a claim against Savencia Cheese. This appellate court affirmedthe district court's decision, concluding that the sellers lacked minimum contacts with Florida to establish personal jurisdiction and that the buyers' complaint did not meet pleading standards for the claims against Savencia Cheese, though one circuit judge dissented regarding the tortious interference claim.

This excerpt from a United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit opinion addresses a breach-of-contract case between AST & Science LLC and Delclaux Partners SA. The core issue revolves around subject-matter jurisdiction, specifically whether the district court possessed federal-question jurisdiction after determining it lacked diversity jurisdiction. The appellate court reviews the application of the Grable test, a four-factor framework used to establish federal-question jurisdiction for state-law claims with embedded federal issues. Ultimately, the court concludes that the federal issue—whether Delclaux acted as an unregistered broker-dealer—is not "substantial" enough to warrant federal jurisdiction, leading to the vacation of the lower court's judgment and a remand for dismissal.

This legal document presents an appeal in the case of J.F., a minor, against Carnival Corporation, following a sexual assault that occurred on a cruise ship. The central issue revolves around whether Carnival was negligent, specifically if they had a duty to protect J.F. and if their actions, or lack thereof, were the proximate cause of her injuries. The court analyzes whether previous incidents or internal policies provided sufficient notice to Carnival of the specific risk J.F. faced, concluding that the plaintiff's arguments about foreseeability and causation were too speculative. Ultimately, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Carnival.

A discussion of an appellate court opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. It details an appeal by Richard and Jocelyn Hicks against Ports America, following a summary judgment granted in favor of Ports America by a lower district court. The core issue revolves around whether Ports America could be held vicariously liable for injuries Richard Hicks sustained when hit by a vehicle driven by Gregory Middleton, a fellow longshoreman employed by Ports America. The appellate court vacated the summary judgment, finding that there were genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Middleton was acting within the course and scope of his employment at the time of the incident, thereby warranting a jury trial. The decision highlights the complexities of determining employer liability under Georgia lawwhen an employee's actions, even seemingly ancillary ones like retrieving work documents, lead to an accident.

This judicial opinion addresses an appeal concerning a lawsuit filed by family members of victims of the 1972 Trelew Massacre in Argentina against Roberto Guillermo Bravo, one of the involved military officers. The plaintiffs sought damages under the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA) for the extrajudicial killing and torture of their relatives. The central issue revolves around the equitable tolling of the TVPA's ten-year statute of limitations, specifically whether extraordinary circumstances prevented the plaintiffs from filing their claims sooner due to fear of reprisal, inability to locate Mr. Bravo, and difficulty discovering crucial evidence. The court vacated and remanded the case, seeking more specific factual findings regarding the tolling period and the diligence of one of the plaintiffs in their representative capacity, while upholding the exclusion of evidence regarding the victims' alleged political affiliations as impermissible character evidence.

This is a "deep dive" into the 11th Circuit's decision in Maria Fatima Mejia Ponce versus the U.S. Attorney General. This legal document addresses Ms. Ponce's petition for review of a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) decision denying her application for asylum. The core issue revolves around the legal interpretation of a "particular social group" in the context of asylum claims, a concept crucial for establishing refugee status. The court references the BIA's long-standing definition and prior Eleventh Circuit rulings, noting the recent change in deference standards due to Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Ultimately, the court denies Ms. Ponce's petition, finding her proposed "particular social group" too broad based on established precedent and factors like immutability, identity, visibility, homogeneity, and cohesiveness.

The episode is dicusses an 11th Circuit detailing the appeal of a summary judgment in a case where Jamie Cunningham sued Cobb County and several police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive force during his arrest for burglary and a Monell claimagainst Cobb County for an unconstitutional custom or policy. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's decision de novo, focusing on whether the officers' use of force was objectively reasonable and if they were entitled to qualified and official immunity. The court ultimately affirmed the summary judgment, concluding the officers did not violate Cunningham's Fourth Amendment rights or act with actual malice, thereby negating the basis for both the individual claims and the Monell claim against the county.