Justia U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Board appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs, mother and son, requiring the Board to reimburse the mother for the cost of the placement of her son, who was diagnosed with autism, in a private school. A hearing officer later found that the Board failed to offer a free appropriate public education to the son before his third birthday, as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(1)(A), and that the Board instead consented to the son's placement at Mitchell's Place, a preschool that provided services and education to autistic children. The district court affirmed. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it weighed the equities and concluded that the County must reimburse plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Blount Cty. Bd. of Educ., et al. v. Bowens, et al." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for charges related to enticement of a minor to engage in sexual activity and possession of child pornography. Defendant alleged that his criminal conviction was obtained in violation of the Sixth Amendment and the Supreme Court's holding in United States v. Cronic. The court concluded that defendant was denied counsel at a critical stage because defendant was a sole defendant during his criminal trial; the afternoon session of defendant's trial commenced while his counsel was actually and physically absent; and during that absence, evidence directly inculpating defendant in a crime for which he was eventually convicted was presented to the jury. Accordingly, the court reversed defendant's conviction as to all counts and remanded for a new trial.View "United States v. Roy" on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that the record supported the state courts' fact findings regarding petitioner's defense team having access to the information in the Holt and Luce statements; the state courts' conclusions as to the non-exculpatory nature of the Brown statement, and the Luce statement for that matter, were not unreasonable applications of Brady v. Maryland; and, therefore, the court deferred to the state courts' adjudications of petitioner's claims about the statements. The court also concluded that petitioner failed to establish that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington and rejected petitioner's aggravating circumstances claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Wright v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Petitioner, a death row inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his petition for writ of habeas corpus after a federal evidentiary hearing. The court carefully reviewed the record and considered the totality of the relevant circumstances bearing on the ultimate question of whether the prosecutor excused even a single black juror based on race, and the court concluded that there are two plausible views of the evidence, both of which have some support. The court deferred to the district court's credit of the prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for striking the six black jurors and rejected petitioner's arguments that the prosecutor's reasons were pretextual. Accordingly, the court denied petitioner's Batson and Fourteenth Amendment claims and affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Madison v. Commissioner, AL DOC, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court rejected petitioner's claim that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel in the investigation and presentation of mitigation evidence during the penalty phase, and concluded that petitioner failed to show that the state court's decision was an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law or based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Mendoza v. Secretary, FL DOC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff and her husband filed suit against LabCorp, alleging that its cytotechnicians were negligent in failing to identify abnormalities in plaintiff's Pap smears and that this negligence caused a delay in her cancer diagnosis. The district court granted LabCorp's motion to exclude plaintiff's expert's testimony based on its conclusion that her methodology did not meet the reliability requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702. The district court then granted LabCorp's motion for summary judgment. The court concluded, however, that the expert was qualified to testify about cytotechnologists' standard of care, her methodology was reliable, and her testimony would assist the trier of fact. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in excluding her testimony. The court reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings.View "Adams, et al. v. Laboratory Corp. of America" on Justia Law

Coquina invested in a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Scott Rothstein and lost over $6.7 million when his scheme collapsed. Coquina then filed suit against TD Bank, claiming that the bank made material misrepresentations and took other actions to help Rothstein perpetrate the fraud. The court concluded that Coquina had Article III standing; the district court did not err in regards to the testimony of TD Bank's regional vice president; although the district court erroneously admitted into evidence the settlement agreement between Coquina and the Trustee, the error did not cause substantial prejudice to TD Bank; the court affirmed the damages award and rejected TD Bank's arguments concerning the award; and affirmed the sanctions imposed. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of Coquina's motion to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court in all respects.View "Coquina Investments v. TD Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner, convicted of first degree murder and sexual battery, appealed the district court's denial of habeas relief. The court concluded that the state court's refusal to grant relief based on the exclusion of the victim's sisters' proffered testimony was neither contrary to nor an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law. Further, petitioner failed to establish that the state court's determination about trial counsel's performance, regarding counsel calling petitioner to testify at trial and having him reenact the murder, was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Strickland v. Washington. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "Taylor v. Secretary, FL Dept. of Corrections" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for receipt of child pornography by computer over the internet. The court concluded that the search of the computers was valid because, despite the infirmities that the district court detected in defendant's consent to search the computers, his wife consented to a full search of the computers and defendant failed to show that the search violated his rights under Georgia v. Randolph. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. Watkins" on Justia Law

The State appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment and an injunction in favor of plaintiffs, enjoining enforcement of Florida's Firearm Owners Privacy Act, Fla. Stat. 381.026, 456.072, 790.338, on First and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. The Act seeks to protect patients' privacy by restricting irrelevant inquiry and record-keeping by physicians regarding firearms. The court concluded that plaintiffs have standing to challenge the Act and plaintiffs' claims are ripe for adjudication; the Act is a legitimate regulation of professional conduct where the Act simply codifies that good medical care does not require inquiry or record-keeping regarding firearms when unnecessary to a patient's care, and any burden the Act places on physician speech is incidental; and the Act is not unconstitutionally vague when the Act is properly understood as a regulation of physician conduct intended to protect patient privacy and curtail abuses of the physician-patient relationship, and it is readily apparent from the language of the Act the type of conduct the Act prohibits. Accordyingly, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and vacated the injunction.View "Wollschlaeger, et al. v. Governor State of FL, et al." on Justia Law