Judicial Notice (Fed. R. Evid. 201)

124 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Taylor v. Gen. Motors Corp.
  875 F.2d 816· 11th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims for strict liability and negligence were not preempted by federal law and stated a valid cause of action under Florida law.
• United States v. Alister Henderson Simon
  842 F.2d 552· 1st Cir.· 1988-03-25 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court did not err in admitting evidence of a prior conviction to show intent, knowledge, and absence of mistake, despite its potential prejudicial effect.
• In re Kelly v. Kelly
  841 F.2d 908· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-02 ·cited 40×
  The court held that debts secured by real property can be considered consumer debts and that a debtor's ability to repay debts is the primary factor in determining 'substantial abuse' under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b).
• In re AOV Indus., Inc.
  792 F.2d 1140· D.C. Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that Hawley was subjected to unequal treatment in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(4) by the bankruptcy plan. The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment outright.
• United States v. Jones
  580 F.2d 219· 6th Cir.· 1978-07-31 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the government's proof that a tapped telephone was furnished by South Central Bell was insufficient to establish, without more, that it was a common carrier providing interstate communications facilities, and that judicial notice could not be taken at the appe
• Schnapper v. Foley
  667 F.2d 102· D.C. Cir.· 1981-10-01 ·cited 32×
  The court held that neither the old nor the new Copyright Act prohibits the registration of works commissioned by the government, nor their assignment to the government, and that Congress had the power to enact these laws. The court also found that appellants lacked standing to r
• Coleman A. Young v. Klutznick
  652 F.2d 617· 6th Cir.· 1981-06-15 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their claimed injury was hypothetical and not yet cognizable, and the case was not ripe for adjudication as the state legislature had not yet acted.
• Holloway v. A.L. Lockhart
  813 F.2d 874· 8th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a local rule conditioning discovery on leave of court for prisoner petitions is invalid because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that summary judgment was inappropriate due to genuine issues of material fact and insufficient discover
• United States v. Ortiz
  742 F.2d 712· 2d Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the appellant's ten-year sentence for distribution of heroin and possession with intent to distribute, considering parole eligibility, was not so disproportionate as to violate the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
• Hernandez v. Denton
  861 F.2d 1421· 9th Cir.· 1988-11-23 ·cited 18×
  A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
• In re the Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc. v. The Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc.
  960 F.2d 285· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not err in certifying the mandatory non-opt-out class and subclasses, nor in approving the complex settlement agreement, affirming the lower court's decision.
• Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rotches Pork Packers, Inc.
  969 F.2d 1384· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Orders and Agriculture Order were inadmissible to establish the existence of a statutory trust, and that the statutory trust under § 196(b) did not extend to receivables owed to Rotches by its customers, which were held by Bankers Trust.
• McCORSTIN v. U. S. Dep't OF Labor
  630 F.2d 242· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's various motions and in dismissing the FOIA action, as the plaintiff received all entitled information and claimed exemptions were proper.
• Rojas Mamani v. Sanchez Berzain
  636 F. Supp. 2d 1326· S.D. Fla.· 2009-06-19 ·cited 13×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to exhaust available remedies in Bolivia as required by the Torture Victim Protection Act (TVPA).
• United States v. Lebron-Gonzalez
  816 F.2d 823· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-24 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed convictions, holding that the admission of a birth certificate was harmless error, expert testimony was permissible, and jury instructions adequately covered the relevant statutes and legal standards.
• Paez v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't OF Corr.
  931 F.3d 1304· 11th Cir.· 2019-07-31 ·cited 10×
  A district court abuses its discretion by sua sponte dismissing a habeas petition as untimely without first ordering the State to respond, even if the court properly took judicial notice of state court dockets.
• Hous. Opportunities Project for Excellence, Inc. v. Key Colony No. 4 Condo. Assoc., Inc.
  510 F. Supp. 2d 1003· S.D. Fla.· 2007-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that most claims stated a valid cause of action, but dismissed the retaliation claim and limited the statute of limitations for one plaintiff.
• Anaya v. Hansen
  781 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that blue collar workers, young adults, and less educated individuals do not constitute "cognizable" or "distinctive" groups under the Duren test for Sixth Amendment fair cross-section challenges, and affirmed the denial of the habeas corpus petition.
• United States v. Cabrera-Sarmiento
  533 F. Supp. 799· S.D. Fla.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while constitutional significance attaches to the office of federal grand jury foreperson, the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and their Sixth Amendment claim also failed because th
• MacMILLAN Bloedel Ltd. & MacMillan Bloedel, Inc. v. The Flintkote Co.
  760 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1985-05-06 ·cited 6×
  A buyer of corporate assets cannot recover from the seller for amounts paid to settle antitrust claims arising from the buyer's own joint and several liability, even if the seller's pre-acquisition conduct contributed to the overall conspiracy.
• United States v. Munksgard
  913 F.3d 1327· 11th Cir.· 2019-01-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government presented sufficient circumstantial evidence for a reasonable jury to find the bank was FDIC-insured at the time of the offense.
• Siderius, Inc. v. M.V. "Amilla"
  880 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Canadian was denied a fair opportunity to present its case on the indemnity issue because the district court judicially noticed an interclub agreement without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard.
• Wooden v. Mo. Pac. R.R. Co.
  862 F.2d 560· 5th Cir.· 1989-01-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence to allow a jury to infer the railroad's knowledge of the risk of silicosis, thus vacating the directed verdict.
• Lawton Frazier v. Consol. Rail Corp.
  851 F.2d 1447· D.C. Cir.· 1988-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in rejecting the plaintiffs' statistical evidence, finding the Engineer Training Program valid, or denying class certification.
• Reiner v. Wash. Plate Glass Co., Inc.
  711 F.2d 414· D.C. Cir.· 1983-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 1954 D.C. Business Corporation Act controls the case and remanded for factual determination regarding the corporation's power to pay for repurchased shares.
• Xiong v. Johnson
  2018 WL 8895782· M.D. Fla.· 2020-09-11 ·cited 1×
  The court ordered plaintiffs to update the status of their I-485 applications and indicate their intent to proceed or consent to dismissal, or face dismissal for failure to prosecute and defective service.
• Gilliard v. Brooks
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-18
  The court denied motions for clerk's default against three defendants because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate proper service of process under federal and state rules.
• Doe v. Application Processing Serv., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-19
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion for clerk's default, finding that service of process was properly effected on the defendant corporation.
• Kendrick v. Warden Michael Pabis
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  A prisoner who has accrued three or more dismissals for frivolity, maliciousness, or failure to state a claim is prohibited from proceeding in forma pauperis and must pay the filing fee, absent allegations of imminent danger.
• Martino v. Marlewski
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-14
  A judge is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity and absolute judicial immunity for actions taken in her official capacity, and a state is not a 'person' under § 1983, warranting dismissal of the complaint.
• Jackson v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-10
  A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' and does not qualify for the imminent danger exception must pay the filing fee at the time of filing, and failure to do so warrants dismissal.
• Sheets v. Angelini
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-28
  The court held that a plaintiff's false arrest claim is barred by Heck v. Humphrey when convicted of the underlying offense, even if adjudication was withheld, and that retaliation and viewpoint discrimination claims require adequate comparators, which were not sufficiently alleg
• The Noco Co. v. Deltona Transformer Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-31
  The court held that the defendants adequately pleaded inequitable conduct under Rule 9(b) and denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss and motion to strike.
• O'Connor v. Hardblower
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-08-08
  The court held that a prisoner who has accrued three or more dismissals for failure to state a claim, and who does not allege imminent danger, must pay the filing fee at the time of filing or face dismissal.
• Blount v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Orange)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-06
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over a pretrial detainee's habeas corpus petition when state court procedures can resolve the issues raised.
• Kinney v. Flores
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-07-10
  A prisoner who has accumulated three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must pay the filing fee upfront and cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Davis v. Sipe
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-20
  A prisoner's failure to truthfully disclose prior litigation history on a complaint form constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal of the current case as malicious.
• Wilson v. Pickett
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis and must pay the filing fee at the time of filing, unless they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Foster v. Centurion Health Care Servs.
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-06-17
  A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' and fails to pay the filing fee upon initiating a lawsuit must have the case dismissed, unless they are under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Hamlett v. Officer Desire
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-16
  A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolous, malicious, or failure-to-state-a-claim actions is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury. Additionally, failure to disclose prior litigation history can result
• Laney v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Polk County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-30
  The court held that the state court's denial of the petitioner's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel was reasonable and not contrary to federal law.
• Wilson v. Penix
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-05-21
  A prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior federal lawsuits on a complaint form, when signed under penalty of perjury, constitutes an abuse of the judicial process warranting dismissal of the current action as malicious.
• Odom v. State
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-30
  The court held that a pro se petitioner's habeas corpus petition was time-barred under AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations because it was filed long after the limitations period expired and the petitioner failed to establish grounds for equitable tolling or the actual innocen
• Lee v. Fla. Dep't of Corr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-15
  A prisoner with three or more prior dismissals for frivolous, malicious, or failure-to-state-a-claim actions cannot proceed in forma pauperis without paying the filing fee, unless under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• Turner v. Dixon
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-02-13
  The court held that a federal habeas petition containing unexhausted claims should be dismissed without prejudice if the petitioner has not demonstrated good cause for the failure to exhaust and a viable state procedure remains available.
• Fowler v. Duvall
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-01-27
  A prisoner who is a 'three-striker' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) must pay the full filing fee at the time of filing and cannot proceed in forma pauperis unless they allege imminent danger of serious physical injury.
• McKesson Corp. v. Benzer KY 1, LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-01-10
  Default judgment is granted against Benzer KY 1 LLC, Alpesh Patel, and Manish Patel for breach of a promissory note and guaranties, but denied against Hema Patel due to lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Brown v. Wells
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-12-31
  The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's complaint because he abused the judicial process by failing to disclose his complete litigation history and because his complaint failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim.
• Concepcion-Padilla v. Armstrong
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-13
  A prisoner's failure to disclose a prior federal habeas corpus petition on a court-required disclosure form constitutes abuse of the judicial process, warranting dismissal of the current action as malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
• Concepcion-Padilla v. Long
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-08
  The court held that a prisoner who intentionally conceals significant financial assets and manipulates account statements to obtain in forma pauperis status abuses the judicial process and warrants dismissal. Additionally, the prisoner's claim of a 48-hour deprivation of basic ne