Objective Standard

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

• United States v. McDOWELL
  475 F.2d 1037· 9th Cir.· 1973-02-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the search of the defendant's backpack was reasonable and incident to a lawful arrest, thus the evidence found was admissible.
• United States v. Tramontana
  460 F.2d 464· 2d Cir.· 1972-05-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the arrest of the defendant was supported by probable cause, making the subsequent confessions and seized contraband admissible.
• The Trs. OF the Univ. OF Pa. v. Lexington Ins. Co.
  815 F.2d 890· 3d Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the jury's finding of timely notice was supported by substantial evidence, rendering the issue of prejudice moot, and that Pennsylvania law would approve a two-tiered settlement if reasonable and made in good faith.
• Hall v. State
  366 So. 2d 865· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-01-31 ·cited 16×
  Hall challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence from a vehicle stop. The court holds that police lacked sufficient grounds to stop the vehicle based only on a retail store manager's report that two Black men were acting suspiciously without any evidence of criminal
• Whatley v. Philo
  817 F.2d 19· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the defendants' conduct violated clearly established constitutional law, thus affirming the dismissal based on qualified immunity.
• Viera v. State
  163 So. 3d 602· Fla. 3d DCA· 2015-04-08 ·cited 14×
  Eduardo Viera petitioned for a writ of prohibition to challenge the trial court's denial of his motion to dismiss charges of attempted murder and aggravated battery based on Florida's Stand Your Ground law. The court denied the petition, holding that competent substantial evidenc
• United States v. Soto
  988 F.2d 1548· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-22 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would hold that the officer lacked an objectively reasonable suspicion to detain and question the driver about drugs or weapons, as the driver's nervousness and inability to provide an address in cold weather, coupled with a negative NCIC report for the vehic
• Greenberg v. Hilton Int'l Co.
  870 F.2d 926· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that sanctions under Rule 11 were not warranted for the initial filing of claims but were appropriate for plaintiff's counsel's conduct during the second round of discovery. The court also affirmed the denial of attorney fees under Title VII.
• Apex OIL Co. v. The Belcher Co. OF NEW York, Inc.
  855 F.2d 1009· 2d Cir.· 1988-08-30 ·cited 14×
  The court held that Fed.R.Civ.P. 37(c) sanctions cannot be imposed against a party's attorney, but sanctions may be available under Rule 26(g). Sanctions cannot be based on composite paraphrases of requests for admission. Sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 for discovery tactics wer
• Alexander v. Conveyors & Dumpers, Inc.
  731 F.2d 1221· 5th Cir.· 1984-05-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the jury instructions on assumption of risk were proper, and the breach of warranty claims were correctly barred by the statute of limitations.
• Alexander v. Alexander
  706 F.2d 751· 6th Cir.· 1983-05-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the burden of pleading and proving qualified immunity rests with the defendant official, and that the district court erred by placing this burden on the plaintiff. The court also held that the plaintiff failed to establish a sufficient causal nexus for claims
• United States v. Glover
  957 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the initial encounter was consensual and did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the subsequent detention of the defendant's bags was justified by reasonable suspicion.
• Bernal v. All Am. Inv. Realty, Inc.
  479 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-23 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's findings of fact and legal conclusions regarding sanctions but modified the recommended remedies, denying a default judgment on liability while imposing monetary sanctions and jury instructions regarding established facts and spoliation o
• Arvayo v. United States
  766 F.2d 1416· 10th Cir.· 1985-06-26 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Arvayos' claim accrued when a reasonable person in their position, aware of drastically different diagnoses and the likelihood of brain damage within a short period, would have inquired about potential misdiagnosis and its causal link to the injury, not wh
• Richio v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  163 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 2001-06-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination under the ADA because she did not provide sufficient evidence that her depression substantially limited a major life activity, specifically working.
• Blumel v. Mylander
  142 F.R.D. 687· M.D. Fla.· 1996-03-06 ·cited 10×
• O'Malley v. NEW York City Transit Auth. & Anthony A. Ardolino
  896 F.2d 704· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-20 ·cited 10×
  A district court must impose some sanction under Rule 11 once it finds a complaint to be groundless, and the court's refusal to do so was an error.
• Andrasko v. Chamberlain Mfg. Corp.
  608 F.2d 944· 3d Cir.· 1979-10-22 ·cited 10×
  The jury's findings that the defendant maintained an unreasonably dangerous condition but did not breach its duty to warn, and that the plaintiff neither assumed the risk nor was contributorily negligent, are reconcilable under Pennsylvania law.
• Dodd Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. OF Am.
  935 F.2d 1152· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-11 ·cited 9×
  A pleading containing both frivolous and nonfrivolous claims can violate Rule 11, but the amount of sanctions must be the minimum necessary to deter future abuses and cannot be calculated solely by a mathematical percentage.
• United States v. Taylor
  956 F.2d 572· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 8×
  The majority opinion, which the author of this dissent disagrees with, validated a stop and seizure based on race, despite it being a constitutionally impermissible basis.
• Samuel H. Salisbury Under the Will of Ora S. Hitchcock v. United States
  377 F.2d 700· 2d Cir.· 1967-05-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the value of the remainder interest to be paid to charity is not capable of present ascertainment due to broad trustee discretion.
• Bratt v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  912 F.2d 1066· 9th Cir.· 1990-08-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the County's probation and child protection employees are not exempt from the FLSA and affirmed the award of overtime wages, interest, and attorneys' fees, but upheld the denial of liquidated damages.
• Amar Shreiteh v. State
  987 So. 2d 761· Fla. 4th DCA· 2008-07-16 ·cited 6×
  Amar Shreiteh was convicted of battery and improper exhibition of a weapon after being tried for aggravated battery and attempted first degree murder arising from an incident at a convenience store. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting his challenges to the trial court's evide
• Toney v. Kawasaki Heavy Indus., Ltd.
  975 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-07 ·cited 6×
  Under Mississippi law, a product with an open and obvious danger is not unreasonably dangerous, barring strict liability claims, and also bars negligence and breach of warranty claims.
• State v. In the Interest of T.P.
  588 So. 2d 286· Fla. 3d DCA· 1991-10-29 ·cited 6×
  An officer's observation of a furtive gesture made by a passenger during a lawful vehicle stop provides sufficient articulable suspicion to justify a pat-down search under Terry v. Ohio.
• Martin v. Baer
  928 F.2d 1067· 11th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding his claims for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and tortious nonfeasance, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment for the defendant.
• Hughes v. City OF Fort Collins
  926 F.2d 986· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying sanctions under Rule 11, despite confusing the subjective and objective standards, because it ultimately found a good faith argument for modification of existing law.
• Paganucci v. City OF NEW York
  993 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1993-05-17 ·cited 4×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment and sanctions against plaintiffs' counsel for attempting to relitigate claims already dismissed on res judicata grounds.
• Bob Jones Univ. v. The United States
  670 F.2d 167· Ct. Cl.· 1982-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the First Amendment does not exempt Bob Jones University from Internal Revenue laws applicable to secular employers. It also agreed that dormitory counselors are a distinct category whose on-campus residence is indispensable for their duties.
• Habie v. Krischer
  642 So. 2d 138· Fla. 4th DCA· 1994-09-14 ·cited 3×
  Joe Habie, a Guatemalan resident, took his two children from Florida to Guatemala in violation of a custody order. He challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statute section 787.04 as unconstitutionally vague, particularly the affirmative defense provision allowing removal of
• Kenneth P. Coffey, M.D. v. Healthtrust, Inc.
  955 F.2d 1388· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on the antitrust claim, finding no evidence of a horizontal group boycott or adverse effect on competition, but reversed and remanded the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions because the district court improperly focused on the attorney
• S.P.M. v. State
  66 So. 3d 317· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-06-15 ·cited 2×
• LaMarca v. Turner
  662 F. Supp. 647· S.D. Fla.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the Magistrate's report and recommendation, overruling defendants' objections regarding jury trial, continuance, recusal, and most factual findings.
• Am. Fed'n OF Gov't Emps. v. Fed. Labor Relations Auth.
  779 F.2d 719· D.C. Cir.· 1985-12-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority's (FLRA) conclusion that an employee could not reasonably fear disciplinary action due to a purported grant of immunity lacked substantial evidence in the record.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. La. Nat'l Bank
  653 F.2d 927· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in finding that the financial statements presented to the board were appropriate, as generally accepted accounting principles required adjustments that would have shown a default under the Note Agreement.
• Lussier v. City of Cape Coral
  2024 WL 234754· M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-06 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for associational discrimination under the ADA because her association with disabled individuals was professional rather than personal, and she did not suffer an adverse employment action, specifically const
• Force v. Cap. One, N.A.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-10-15
  The court held that the plaintiff's repeated violations of procedural rules, including the citation of nonexistent cases and improper filing of notices, warrant striking his recent filings and ordering him to show cause why the case should not be dismissed.
• Del. Human & Civil Rights Comm'n v. Welch
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2025-10-09
  The court denied the defendants' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, finding that they failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's action was filed for an improper purpose as required by the Delaware Fair Housing Act. The court emphasized that a lack of success alone is insuffic
• Fuller v. The City of Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-12
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the constitutional right they asserted was clearly established at the time of the alleged conduct.
• Himawan
  Del. Ch.· 2024-04-30
  The Court held that the defendants did not breach the Merger Agreement's "commercially reasonable efforts" (CRE) clause. The Court found that the defendants' actions, including Cephalon's termination of RSZ development for EoE after multiple failed attempts to gain FDA approval a
• Balbin v. Latin
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-06-12
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate he faced a substantial risk of serious harm, a necessary element for an Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claim.
• Starceski v. United Van Lines LLC
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-07
  The court denied motions for attorneys' fees and sanctions, finding the attorney's conduct did not rise to the level of bad faith or unreasonable multiplication of proceedings.
• Errickson v. Lakeland Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-05-11
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for disparate treatment, hostile work environment, or retaliation under the ADA, but granted leave to amend.
• v. I.D. No. 2005000034 John Herbert
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2022-03-17
  The Court held that the defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment on due process grounds must be denied. The statutory definition of sexual contact, which incorporates a "reasonable person" standard to assess intent, does not violate due process. This standard serves to evalua
• Stann v. The First Liberty Ins. Corp.
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-03-08
  The court held that an attorney's repeated filing of duplicative motions, despite prior warnings, unreasonably and vexatiously multiplied proceedings, warranting sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927.
• Juliano'
  Del.· 2020-11-12
  The Delaware Supreme Court held that a police officer's subjective intent is irrelevant to the constitutional reasonableness of a traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment, adhering to the precedent set in Whren v. United States. The Court also affirmed that Article I, § 6 of the D
• Mackey v. Fairwinds Credit Union
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-06-16
  An attorney's intentional misrepresentation of compliance with Local Rule 3.01(g), especially after prior warnings and a pattern of similar conduct, warrants sanctions including admonishment and referral to the Grievance Committee.
• Cohen v. Burlington, Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-03-03
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the default judgment and granted in part and denied in part the movants' motion for sanctions.
• Garcia v. State
  Fla. 2d DCA· 2019-11-27
  Max Garcia was charged with aggravated battery after using force against Jordan Melchild during a physical altercation at Melchild's house. Garcia sought dismissal under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, but the trial court denied the motion, finding Garcia was a trespasser and Me
• Logan v. Clemmons
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-06
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state an Eighth Amendment claim for failure to protect against most defendants but allowed the failure-to-intervene claim against one defendant to proceed.