Objective Standard

112 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Oliveri v. Thompson
  803 F.2d 1265· 2d Cir.· 1986-10-15 ·cited 150×
  The court held that sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 require a finding of subjective bad faith, while Rule 11 sanctions can be imposed for signing papers that are not well-grounded in fact or law after reasonable inquiry, or are filed for an improper purpose.
• Barker v. Norman
  651 F.2d 1107· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 129×
  The court held that the trial judge abused his discretion by not advising a pro se litigant that his affidavit was insufficient due to hearsay.
• Rakovich v. Wade
  850 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-08 ·cited 128×
• General William C. Westmoreland v. CBS, Inc.
  770 F.2d 1168· D.C. Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 122×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying sanctions under Rule 11 against CBS for filing a groundless contempt petition against a non-party witness. However, the court affirmed the denial of costs and attorneys' fees for attending the deposition itself.
• Samuel W. Brown, M.D. v. Fed'n OF State Med. Bds. OF THE United States
  830 F.2d 1429· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 114×
  The court held that while the district court correctly imposed Rule 11 sanctions, it abused its discretion by failing to specify the basis and computation of the award, requiring a remand for redetermination.
• Scarlett McDaniel Barts v. Joyner
  865 F.2d 1187· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-27 ·cited 91×
  The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, but the judgment against them in their official capacities stands.
• United States v. Wylie
  569 F.2d 62· D.C. Cir.· 1977-11-15 ·cited 73×
  The court held that the officer's request for the appellant to return to the bank, based on his inability to produce identification after a mistaken belief about cashing a check, constituted an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment.
• Minority Emps. OF THE Tenn. Dep't OF Emp. Sec. v. State OF Tenn.
  901 F.2d 1327· 6th Cir.· 1990-04-26 ·cited 70×
  The court holds that the notice of appeal was not sufficiently clear to include all plaintiffs, despite the dissent's view. The majority opinion provides clearer guidance for future cases.
• Royer v. State
  389 So. 2d 1007· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-12-28 ·cited 64×
  Mark Royer was arrested after police officers at Miami International Airport observed him matching a drug courier profile and, following his consent, searched his luggage and found 65 pounds of marijuana. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of his motion to s
• In re Ronco, Inc.
  838 F.2d 212· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 58×
  The court held that while some omissions and misrepresentations by the attorneys warranted sanctions under Rule 11, the substantive legal arguments were not so deficient as to justify sanctions, leading to vacating the district court's judgment.
• Frazier v. Cast
  771 F.2d 259· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-20 ·cited 58×
• Musso v. Hourigan
  836 F.2d 736· 2d Cir.· 1988-01-05 ·cited 57×
  The court held that denial of qualified immunity is an immediately appealable collateral order, and that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether a Board member's silencing of speech was content-based, thus violating clearly established First Amendment law.
• Selma Jennings v. BIC Corp. & Southland Corp.
  181 F.3d 1250· 11th Cir.· 1999-07-22 ·cited 52×
  Selma Jennings and her minor son Maximo Edwards sued BIC Corporation and others after Maximo was injured when his pajamas caught fire, allegedly ignited by a lighter that lacked child-proof features. The district court granted summary judgment to BIC, holding that Florida law imp
• United States v. Jewel
  947 F.2d 224· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 52×
  The exclusionary rule should apply to sentencing, as allowing illegally seized evidence would significantly undermine the Fourth Amendment.
• Rogers v. State
  586 So. 2d 1148· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-08-14 ·cited 52×
  In consolidated appeals, two defendants challenged the denial of their suppression motions for drug contraband found during a vehicle stop. The court held that police had founded suspicion to stop the van based on an informant's tip corroborated by officer observations, and that
• Conner v. Reinhard
  847 F.2d 384· 7th Cir.· 1988-05-19 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the qualified immunity inquiry cannot be confined to a purely objective view when the legality of actions depends on the defendant's motive.
• United States v. Doyle Ray Skinner
  412 F.2d 98· 8th Cir.· 1969-06-18 ·cited 44×
  A search is incidental to a lawful arrest if the officer had probable cause to arrest and the evidence seized was not necessary to establish probable cause, even if the search precedes the formal announcement of arrest.
• Northern J. Calloway v. The Marvel Ent. Grp.
  854 F.2d 1452· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-12 ·cited 42×
  The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 were properly imposed on an attorney and his firm for pursuing a baseless claim, but sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 were reversed. The court also reinstated the client's appeal regarding Rule 11 sanctions.
• Dyes v. Spick
  606 So. 2d 700· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-10-12 ·cited 39×
  In this personal injury action, the Dyes appealed a jury verdict following a truck accident caused by a Coca-Cola bottling company vehicle. The court reversed on the issue of Mr. Dyes' past noneconomic damages, finding the $5,000 award grossly inadequate given the severity of his
• Mobley v. State
  132 So. 3d 1160· Fla. 3d DCA· 2014-01-02 ·cited 33×
  Gabriel Mobley was charged with two counts of second-degree murder for shooting two men outside a restaurant. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted Mobley's petition for writ of prohibition, finding that he was entitled to immunity from prosecution under Florida's St
• United States v. ROY
  869 F.2d 1427· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-10 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the existence of probable cause for a search is determined by an objective standard based on the totality of the circumstances, not solely on the subjective belief of law enforcement officers.
• Zuniga v. United CAN Co.
  812 F.2d 443· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-06 ·cited 33×
  The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the plaintiff's failure to exhaust internal union remedies was properly excused due to futility and timeliness concerns, and that substantial evidence supported the jury's verdicts against both the employer and the union
• Hurd v. Ralphs Grocery Co.
  824 F.2d 806· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 32×
  Sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 cannot be imposed for filing a complaint in state court prior to removal, and the opposition to a summary judgment motion, if based on a good faith argument for the extension of existing law, does not warrant sanctions.
• United States v. Savoca
  761 F.2d 292· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 32×
  The good faith exception to the exclusionary rule does not apply when a warrant is based on an affidavit lacking sufficient indicia of probable cause, rendering official belief in its existence unreasonable.
• Affiliated Cap. Corp. v. City OF Houston
  735 F.2d 1555· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an agreement between a city and private defendants to deny a competitor access to the process for awarding franchises constitutes an illegal restraint of trade under antitrust laws.
• Scott v. Dixon
  720 F.2d 1542· 11th Cir.· 1983-12-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for Dixon, Kelley, and Latham, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding state action and qualified immunity. However, Floyd, the clerk, was entitled to absolute judicial immunity.
• Mrs. Cornelius Cuthbertson Hill v. Rowland
  474 F.2d 1374· 4th Cir.· 1973-03-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred by instructing the jury solely on an objective probable cause standard for a § 1983 claim, rather than also considering the officers' good faith and reasonable belief in the legality of the arrest. This error, along with confusing inst
• In re Weinstein
  518 So. 2d 1370· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-01-20 ·cited 29×
  An attorney was held in direct contempt twice during a civil jury trial for repeatedly failing to stand when making objections to the court, despite multiple warnings and a prior contempt finding. The appellate court affirmed the contempt judgments, holding that intentional disre
• United States v. Robinson
  471 F.2d 1082· D.C. Cir.· 1972-10-31 ·cited 28×
  A full search of a person incident to a lawful arrest for a minor traffic violation is unconstitutional if it exceeds the scope necessary to discover weapons or evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made.
• Todd v. United States & R.S. Wintrode, Jr.
  849 F.2d 365· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the IRS agents were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct in assessing a penalty under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 did not violate any clearly established constitutional rights of the taxpayer.
• Price v. Gray's Guard Serv., Inc.
  298 So. 2d 461· Fla. 1st DCA· 1974-07-16 ·cited 27×
  Roy Price's estate sued Gray's Guard Service and its insurer after Price was shot and killed by guard Petty during an unprovoked assault. The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that Petty acted in lawful self-defense when he fired upon Price and Motes who
• Boswell v. The Cnty. OF Sherburne
  849 F.2d 1117· 8th Cir.· 1988-06-21 ·cited 26×
  Government officials are not entitled to qualified immunity if their conduct violates clearly established constitutional rights, even if the specific factual scenario is not identical to prior precedent.
• Kamen v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  791 F.2d 1006· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-23 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions because the plaintiff's counsel conducted a reasonable inquiry into the jurisdictional basis of the complaint, given the complexity of the law and the information available.
• United States v. Montgomery
  561 F.2d 875· D.C. Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 25×
  The majority holds that police officers lacked reasonable suspicion to stop a driver based on observed circumstances.
• Tyson L. Chaffin v. State
  121 So. 3d 608· Fla. 4th DCA· 2013-08-14 ·cited 23×
  Tyson Chaffin appeals his convictions for second-degree murder and tampering with evidence following the fatal shooting of his father. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the murder conviction and the denial of his suppression motion, but reversed the tampering convictio
• Cullen Reed Peppers v. Coates
  887 F.2d 1493· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-13 ·cited 23×
  The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity and that the plaintiff failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the defendant's involvement in alleged constitutional violations.
• United States v. Tharpe
  536 F.2d 1098· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-13 ·cited 23×
• United States v. Domingo Salinas-Calderon
  728 F.2d 1298· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the trooper had probable cause to arrest the defendant for violating immigration laws, and statements made after Miranda warnings were admissible.
• Constructora Maza, Inc. v. Banco de Ponce
  616 F.2d 573· 1st Cir.· 1980-02-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the transfers were voidable preferences because Maza was insolvent and the Bank had reasonable cause to believe it was insolvent, and the Bank's set-off claim was invalid because the certificate of deposit was pledged as security.
• Forsyth v. Kleindienst
  729 F.2d 267· 3d Cir.· 1984-03-08 ·cited 21×
  The court held that prior rulings (law of the case) control, and recent Supreme Court decisions do not alter the analysis for absolute or qualified immunity in this case. Interlocutory appeals of qualified immunity denials are still generally not permitted.
• Mitchell v. Brogden
  249 So. 3d 781· Fla. 1st DCA· 2018-07-16 ·cited 20×
  A stalking injunction must be supported by evidence that the respondent's conduct caused substantial emotional distress under an objective, reasonable-person standard. The evidence in this case did not meet that threshold.
• Ulpiano Unanue-Casal v. Unanue-Casal
  898 F.2d 839· 1st Cir.· 1990-03-28 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the district court's denial of sanctions was understandable given its prompt dismissal of the frivolous removal petition, the court should have imposed some sanction, and a reprimand was an appropriate sanction under Rule 11.
• United States v. Winston
  892 F.2d 112· D.C. Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the initial encounter and subsequent questioning of the defendant did not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment, and the defendant voluntarily consented to the search of his bag.
• Cmty. Elec. Serv. OF LOS Angeles, Inc. v. Nat'l Elec. Contractors Ass'n, Inc.
  869 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 20×
  The court should affirm the denial of sanctions because the motion was not timely filed, despite the majority's interpretation of precedent.
• Thomas v. Cap. Sec. Servs., Inc.
  812 F.2d 984· 5th Cir.· 1987-03-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that a district court must make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law on all four requirements of Rule 11 when ruling on a sanctions motion, and cannot choose not to impose sanctions if a violation is found. The court affirmed the denial of fees under 28
• United States v. Nestor Martinez
  465 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1972-08-23 ·cited 20×
  The court affirmed the convictions for assaulting federal agents, holding that the arrest was lawful and the defendant's resistance was unjustified.
• Duran v. City OF Douglas
  904 F.2d 1372· 9th Cir.· 1990-06-04 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a police officer's stop and arrest of an individual for making obscene gestures and yelling profanities, which constituted protected speech, was unlawful and violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus denying qualified immunity. The court also fo
• United States v. Webb
  623 F.2d 758· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the arresting agent had probable cause to arrest the suspect based on the totality of her suspicious actions and the discovery of illegal drugs, rendering the subsequent seizure of evidence admissible.
• Jones v. Pittsburgh Nat'l Corp. t/d/b/a Pittsburgh Nat'l Bank
  899 F.2d 1350· 3d Cir.· 1990-04-03 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the attorney's recusal motion was properly denied, but the sanctions order against him must be vacated and remanded due to insufficient notice and failure to differentiate between Rule 11 and § 1927 standards.
• Sourbeer v. Robinson
  791 F.2d 1094· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the due process rights of unsentenced prisoners in administrative segregation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.