Legal Standards of Review
– The Established Citations –
De Novo

Claims of absolute immunity present questions of law that we review de novo . Rich v. Dollar , 841 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir. 1988).

We also review de novo a district court's determination of res judicata or collateral estoppel. See Jang v. United Techs. Corp, 206 F.3d 1147, 1149 (11th Cir. 2000).

We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion to compel arbitration. MS Dealer Serv. Corp. v. Franklin, 177 F.3d 942, 946 (11th Cir.1999)

We review de novo a district court's determination that a plaintiff lacks Article III standing to pursue a § 1985(2) claim. See Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. Fla. State Athletic Comm'n, 226 F.3d 1226, 1228 (11th Cir. 2000). To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate

"(1) an injury in fact;

(2) a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and

(3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision."

We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and review its conclusions of law de novo. See American Dredging Co. v. Lambert, 153 F.3d 1292, 1295 (11th Cir. 1998).

In Bajakajian, we expressly noted that the courts of appeals must review the proportionality determination "de novo" and specifically rejected the suggestion of the respondent, who had prevailed in the District Court, that the trial judge's determination of excessiveness should be reviewed only for an abuse of discretion. "The factual findings made by the district courts in conducting the excessiveness inquiry, of course, must be accepted unless clearly erroneous.... But the question whether a fine is constitutionally excessive calls for the application of a constitutional standard to the facts of a particular case, and in this context de novo review of that question is appropriate." 524 U. S., at 336-337, n. 10 (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U. S. 690, 697 (1996)).

We review a district court's interpretation and application of a statute de novo. International Union v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., 6 F.3d 722, 724 (11th Cir. 1993).

An interpretation of statutory language that causes other language within the statute to be meaningless contravenes the "`elementary canon of construction that a statute should be interpreted so as not to render one part inoperative.'" Mountain States Tel. Tel. Co. v. Pueblo of Santa Ana, 472 U.S. 237, 249, 105 S.Ct. 2587, 2594 (1985) (quoting Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 392, 99 S.Ct. 675, 684 (1979))

We review de novo the district court's grant of a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true and construing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.

The language of section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) tracks the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and we will apply Rule 12(b)(6) standards in reviewing dismissals under section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Of course, we review dismissals under Rule 12(b)(6) de novo, viewing the allegations in the complaint as true. E.g., South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Montalvo, 84 F.3d 402, 406 (11th Cir. 1996).

Whether the doctrine of equitable tolling saves a cause of action otherwise barred by the statute of limitations is a question of law which we consider de novo. Miranda v. B B Cash Grocery Store, Inc., 975 F.2d 1518, 1531 (11th Cir. 1992).

Title VII specifically requires a federal employee to exhaust his administrative remedies as a precondition to filing suit. Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832, 96 S.Ct. at 1961, 1965, 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976) ("Initially, the complainant must seek relief in the agency that has allegedly discriminated against him."); see also Cooper v. Bell, 628 F.2d 1208, 1211 (9th Cir. 1980) (Title VII "contemplates the invocation of administrative remedies as a condition precedent to litigation" by a federal employee) (citing Brown). Whether a claimant has satisfied that precondition is itself a question of law reviewable de novo.

We review the district court’s decision disallowing the deposition testimony for abuse of discretion, Coletti v. Cudd Pressure Control, 165 F.3d 767, 773 (10th Cir.1999), and the district court’s interpretation of the federal rules de novo. United States v. Medina-Estrada, 81 F.3d 981, 986 (10th Cir.1996).

Moreover, these alleged material factual disputes advanced by the Ellises are irrelevant to the legal determination of whether absolute immunity is applicable. See Rich v. Dollar, 841 F.2d 1558, 1561 (11th Cir.1988) ("[C]laims of absolute... immunity turn on questions of law;" therefore, our review is de novo.). We conclude that this court appropriately has jurisdiction to decide the legislative immunity issue presented to us.

Whether we have jurisdiction is a question of law, which we review de novo. Employers Ins. of Wausau v. Bright Metal Specialties, Inc., 251 F.3d 1316, 1321 (11th Cir. 2001).

Likewise, we review de novo federal-versus-state, or Erie, choice-of-law questions, Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., 289 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2002), and state-versus-state choice-of-law questions, AIG Baker Sterling Heights, L.L.C. v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 508 F.3d 995, 999 (11th Cir. 2007).

Likewise, we review de novo federal-versus-state, or Erie, choice-of-law questions, Esfeld v. Costa Crociere, S.P.A., 289 F.3d 1300, 1306 (11th Cir. 2002), and state-versus-state choice-of-law questions, AIG Baker Sterling Heights, L.L.C. v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 508 F.3d 995, 999 (11th Cir. 2007).

We review de novo whether jury instructions accurately summarize the law, “but give the district court substantial discretion to formulate the instructions... [provided that the instructions] represent[ ] a complete and correct statement of the law.” United States v. Noel, 581 F.3d 490, 499 (7th Cir.2009) (quoting United States v. Matthews, 505 F.3d 698, 704 (7th Cir.2007)). Our review can be thought of as involving two steps. First, we review the legal accuracy of a jury instruction de novo. United States v. McKnight, 665 F.3d 786, 790 (7th Cir.2011), reh'g and suggestion for reh'g en banc denied, 671 F.3d 664 (7th Cir.2012) and cert. denied,––– U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 2756, 183 L.Ed.2d 626 (2012), reh'g denied,––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 87, 183 L.Ed.2d 727 (2012). Second, if we determine that that the instruction is legally accurate at the first step, we then examine the district court's particular phrasing of the instruction for abuse of discretion. Id. at 790–91. We will reverse at this second step “only if it appears both that the jury was misled and that the instructions prejudiced the defendant.” Id. at 791 (quoting United States v. Curry, 538 F.3d 718, 731 (7th Cir.2008)).

But we review the district court’s legal conclusions in a § 2255 proceeding de novo and the underlying facts for clear error. Castillo v. United States, 200 F.3d 735, 736 (11th Cir.), cert denied, 531 U.S. 845, 121 S.Ct. 114, 148 L.Ed.2d 70 (2000).

Whether a case is moot is a question of law that we review de novo. Troiano v. Supervisor of Elections in Palm Beach County, 382 F.3d 1276, 1282 (11th Cir.2004).

We review de novo a district court's summary judgment denial of official immunity. See Cummings v. DeKalb Cnty., 24 F.3d 1349, 1352 (11th Cir.1994); Griesel v. Hamlin, 963 F.2d 338, 341 (11th Cir.1992).

We review de novo whether the officers are entitled to immunity. Hoyt v. Cooks, 672 F.3d 972, 981 (11th Cir.2012) (official immunity); Townsend v. Jefferson Cty., 601 F.3d 1152, 1157 (11th Cir.2010) (qualified immunity); Nat'l Ass'n of Bds. of Pharmacy v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga., 633 F.3d 1297, 1313 (11th Cir.2011) (sovereign immunity).

Consequently, we are not required to defer to the administrative law judge. Because the case involves a pure issue of law, we review the order by the de novo standard of review.

A district court's conclusions as to res judicata are conclusions of law, and are thus reviewable de novo by this Court. See McDonald v. Hillsborough County School Bd., 821 F.2d 1563, 1565 (11th Cir. 1987).

"We review de novo the legality of an order of restitution, but we review factual findings underlying a restitution order for clear error." United States v. Washington, 434 F.3d 1265, 1267 (11th Cir.2006). Whether a person is a "victim" is a legal conclusion we review de novo, "but proximate cause is a factual finding we review for clear error." United States v. Robertson, 493 F.3d 1322, 1334 (11th Cir.2007).

We review de novo the district court's rulings on motions under Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, examining the trial evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Thosteson v. United States, 331 F.3d 1294, 1298 (11th Cir. 2003).

District court denials of state sovereign immunity under Alabama law are immediately appealable to this Court. Tinney v. Shores, 77 F.3d 378, 382 (11th Cir. 1996). We review de novo the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss based on sovereign immunity. Id. at 383. If the complaint contains a claim that is facially subject to an affirmative defense, that claim may be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). Cottone v. Jenne, 326 F.3d 1352, 1357 (11th Cir. 2003); Marsh v. Butler County, 268 F.3d 1014, 1022 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc).

We review issues of standing de novo. DiMaio v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 520 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2008) (per curiam).

The subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is a question of law and, therefore, subject to de novo review. See, e.g., United States v. Wilson, 894 F.2d 1245, 1253 (11th Cir.), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 110 S.Ct. 3284, 111 L.Ed.2d 792 (1990).

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo , considering the facts and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Mann v. Taser Int'l, Inc. , 588 F.3d 1291, 1303 (11th Cir. 2009).

We exercise plenary review over the district court's grant of summary judgment. Chapman v. Klemick, 3 F.3d 1508, 1509 (11th Cir. 1993).