Ex Parte Young Doctrine

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

• Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of the City of N.Y.
  436 U.S. 658· U.S.· 1978-06-06 ·cited 5807×
  The court reviewed an interlocutory order concerning a development order for Myakka Estates, a planned residential community, where the developer (GDC) sought to challenge a prehearing order mandating a comprehensive evidentiary hearing on an appeal of a city's development order.
• Edelman v. Jordan
  415 U.S. 651· U.S.· 1974-03-25 ·cited 3150×
  The dissent argues that by participating in federal welfare programs, states waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal court orders requiring retroactive payment of benefits.
• Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman
  465 U.S. 89· U.S.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 1830×
  The court affirmed a directed verdict for some appellees and reversed and remanded for a new trial against others in a wrongful death action arising from a gunshot wound and subsequent medical treatment delays.
• Dombrowski v. Pfister
  380 U.S. 479· U.S.· 1965-04-26 ·cited 1616×
  The Court's decision abolishes the doctrine of federal judicial abstention in suits attacking state criminal statutes for vagueness on First-Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
• Steffel v. Thompson
  415 U.S. 452· U.S.· 1974-03-19 ·cited 1502×
  Yes, yes. Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. delivered the unanimous opinion. The Court held that the case presented an actual controversy, as the Georgia statute could interfere with Steffel’s exercise of his constitutional rights even if he was not arrested. Because the United Sta
• Hutto v. Finney
  437 U.S. 678· U.S.· 1978-06-23 ·cited 1484×
  The Court held that punitive isolation for longer than thirty days in Arkansas prisons constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution. Justice Stevens conceded that isolation in and of itself was not necessarily unconstitutional and may in fact serve an im
• Quern v. Jordan
  440 U.S. 332· U.S.· 1979-03-05 ·cited 1057×
• Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
  427 U.S. 445· U.S.· 1976-06-28 ·cited 889×
  The Florida Supreme Court quashed an Industrial Relations Commission decision affirming an award of workmen's compensation benefits, finding that an employee's congenital back abnormality triggered by a simple act during a work break did not constitute an injury 'arising out of e
• Juidice v. Vail
  430 U.S. 327· U.S.· 1977-03-22 ·cited 829×
  The Court should have abstained under Pullman doctrine pending state court construction of the statute.
• Atascadero State Hosp. v. Scanlon
  473 U.S. 234· U.S.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 763×
  The dissenting Justices would affirm the judgment, finding that California consented to suit by accepting federal funds and that Congress abrogated state immunity under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Perez v. Ledesma
  401 U.S. 82· U.S.· 1971-02-23 ·cited 758×
  The Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the three-judge court's decision on a local ordinance, which should have been appealed to the Court of Appeals.
• Papasan v. Allain
  478 U.S. 265· U.S.· 1986-07-01 ·cited 720×
  The Court's Eleventh Amendment jurisprudence is flawed, ad hoc, and hinders federal law enforcement.
• Emps. of the Dep't of Pub. Health & Welf. of Mo. v. Dep't of Pub. Health & Welf. of Mo.
  411 U.S. 279· U.S.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 529×
  Congress did not intend to abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity for suits brought by their own employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida
  517 U.S. 44· U.S.· 1996-03-27 ·cited 443×
  The Indian Commerce Clause does not grant Congress the power to abrogate state sovereign immunity, and the doctrine of Ex parte Young cannot be used to compel state officials to enforce the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act's good-faith negotiation requirement.
• Commonwealth of Pa. v. State of W. Va.
  262 U.S. 553· U.S.· 1923-06-11 ·cited 416×
  Pennsylvania and Ohio sued to enjoin West Virginia from enforcing a 1919 state law requiring natural gas producers to prioritize supplying local consumers before exporting gas to other states. The Supreme Court held that the West Virginia statute unconstitutionally interfered wit
• Green v. Mansour
  474 U.S. 64· U.S.· 1985-12-03 ·cited 349×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar notice relief that informs class members of state administrative remedies, as it imposes no significant costs or liabilities on the state.
• Morales v. Trans World Airlines, Inc.
  504 U.S. 374· U.S.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 292×
  State enforcement of airline fare advertising guidelines through general consumer protection statutes is pre-empted by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, as such guidelines 'relate to' airline rates, routes, or services.
• Rosewell v. Lasalle Nat'l Bank
  450 U.S. 503· U.S.· 1981-03-24 ·cited 260×
  The Tax Injunction Act's "plain, speedy and efficient remedy" exception requires consideration of the substance of a state remedy, not just its procedural mechanics. An inadequate state remedy does not defeat federal jurisdiction.
• Hafer v. Melo
  502 U.S. 21· U.S.· 1991-11-05 ·cited 231×
  State officials sued in their individual capacities are "persons" subject to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits.
• Puerto RICO Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
  506 U.S. 139· U.S.· 1993-01-12 ·cited 184×
  The Court holds that a state entity's claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity is immediately appealable, even if it is a denial of a motion to dismiss.
• Fla. Dep't of State v. Treasure Salvors, Inc.
  458 U.S. 670· U.S.· 1982-07-01 ·cited 171×
  No. In a plurality opinion, the Court first held that while a state enjoys limited immunity from federal process under the Eleventh Amendment, its officers do not. In the present case, the seizure warrant was filed against Florida's officers in the Archives. The Archive officers,
• Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett
  531 U.S. 356· U.S.· 2001-02-21 ·cited 165×
  The dissenting opinion argues that accrued trust income, which was due to the income beneficiary (Fred Horner) during his lifetime but not yet paid, should be distributed to his estate.
• Ga. R.R. & Banking Co. v. Redwine
  342 U.S. 299· U.S.· 1952-01-28 ·cited 165×
  The State of Georgia is bound by a prior decree that declared its contract with the appellant valid and binding.
• Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Jacobsen
  362 U.S. 73· U.S.· 1960-03-07 ·cited 161×
  The Court holds that a three-judge district court is required when a state statute is challenged on both constitutional and non-constitutional grounds, thus granting the Supreme Court direct appellate jurisdiction.
• Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co.
  491 U.S. 1· U.S.· 1989-06-15 ·cited 156×
• Cory v. White
  457 U.S. 85· U.S.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 153×
  The Court should exercise its original jurisdiction to decide the controversy if interpleader is not a practical solution and Worcester County Trust Co. v. Riley remains good law.
• Okla. Tax Comm'n v. Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma
  498 U.S. 505· U.S.· 1991-02-26 ·cited 148×
  A tribe's sovereign immunity from suits for money damages does not necessarily extend to suits seeking equitable relief.
• Holt v. Sarver
  442 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 138×
  The court concurs with the prior decision, emphasizing the constitutional significance of the absence of a rehabilitation program in light of the existing inhumane prison conditions.
• Verizon Md. Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n of Md.
  535 U.S. 635· U.S.· 2002-05-20 ·cited 125×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state utility commissioners seeking to enjoin enforcement of orders violating federal law, under the doctrine of Ex parte Young.
• Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene Tribe OF Idaho
  521 U.S. 261· U.S.· 1997-06-23 ·cited 112×
  A federal court has jurisdiction under Ex parte Young to enjoin state officers from regulating land claimed by a tribe under federal law, even if the suit implicates title and regulatory jurisdiction.
• Gamble v. The Fla. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  779 F.2d 1509· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-14 ·cited 103×
  Florida has not waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity to suit in federal court for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as its statutory waivers are limited to traditional tort claims or indemnification of officers sued in their individual capacities.
• Rutledge v. Ariz. Bd. OF Regents
  660 F.2d 1345· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the Arizona Board of Regents and ASU, but not against individual officials for common law torts. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for assault and battery are barred by Parratt v. Taylor's due process analysis, and other c
• Rothstein v. Wyman
  467 F.2d 226· 2d Cir.· 1972-09-07 ·cited 82×
  A federal court cannot order state officials to make retroactive welfare payments from state funds, as this violates the Eleventh Amendment and is an improvident exercise of equity powers in the context of cooperative federalism.
• Orleans Parish Sch. Bd. v. Bush
  242 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1957-03-01 ·cited 80×
  The court held that Louisiana's constitutional provisions and statutes mandating racial segregation in public schools, including the Pupil Assignment Law, are unconstitutional and void as violations of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
• Smith v. Ferron C. Losee
  485 F.2d 334· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 78×
  The dissenting judge argues that board members are liable for failing to investigate facts, even if they acted in good faith, and that damages awarded were excessive.
• Finberg v. Sullivan
  634 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 72×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in interpreting state procedural rules, asserting they provide due process in postjudgment proceedings.
• Friends OF THE Everglades v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
  570 F.3d 1210· 11th Cir.· 2009-06-04 ·cited 71×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the transfer of pollutants from one navigable body of water to another does not constitute a "discharge of a pollutant" requiring a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act, based on the EPA's "unitary
• Josiah L. Hoohuli v. Ariyoshi
  741 F.2d 1169· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-30 ·cited 68×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar injunctive relief against state officials for alleged Fourteenth Amendment violations, but claims for repayment to the state are barred by lack of standing. State officials are not protected by qualified immunity from suits seeking injunctions
• Nuclear Eng'g Co. v. Scott
  660 F.2d 241· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-26 ·cited 67×
  The court held that it lacked appellate jurisdiction over the interlocutory appeal due to the untimely filing, and that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over both the Illinois action (no federal question or diversity jurisdiction) and the NEC action (no actua
• Monell v. Dep't OF Soc. Servs. OF the City OF NEW York
  532 F.2d 259· 2d Cir.· 1976-03-08 ·cited 62×
  The court held that claims for equitable relief were moot due to policy changes, and claims for back pay were barred by lack of subject matter jurisdiction under both Title VII and § 1983.
• Hargrave v. Shellie McKINNEY
  413 F.2d 320· 5th Cir.· 1969-06-09 ·cited 62×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision because the equal protection claim is insubstantial and settled by precedent.
• The Sch. Bd. OF THE City OF Charlottesville v. Allen
  240 F.2d 59· 4th Cir.· 1956-12-31 ·cited 58×
  School boards can be enjoined from enforcing racial segregation in public schools, as such suits are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and do not constitute suits against the state.
• Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich
  510 U.S. 200· U.S.· 1994-01-19 ·cited 57×
  The Court's interpretation of the statute is affirmed, but the concurrence disagrees with the necessity of discussing legislative history and the reasoning on the constitutional claim.
• Democratic Executive Comm. OF Fla. v. Laurel M. LEE
  915 F.3d 1312· 11th Cir.· 2019-02-15 ·cited 56×
  Florida's signature-matching scheme for vote-by-mail and provisional ballots, which rejected ballots when officials determined signatures did not match, was found to impose an undue burden on the right to vote in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments because some voter
• Jordan v. Weaver
  472 F.2d 985· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-18 ·cited 55×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal court orders for retroactive welfare benefits when a state participates in a federal program and agrees to comply with federal law. Federal regulations requiring promptness are consistent with the Social Security Act.
• Marnika Lewis v. Governor of Alabama
  944 F.3d 1287· 11th Cir.· 2019-12-13 ·cited 54×
  Minimum-wage workers sued Alabama's Attorney General, alleging that a state law preempting Birmingham's higher minimum-wage ordinance violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Eleventh Circuit held that the workers lacked Article III standing to sue the Attorney General because t
• Williams v. Eaton
  443 F.2d 422· 10th Cir.· 1971-05-14 ·cited 54×
  The court held that dismissal for failure to state a claim or summary judgment was improper as material issues of fact remained regarding First Amendment rights and the propriety of the dismissal. However, claims for money damages against state officers in their official capaciti
• Va. Off. for Prot. & Advocacy v. Stewart
  563 U.S. 247· U.S.· 2011-04-19 ·cited 52×
  The Supreme Court held that the Ex parte Young doctrine permits a federal court to hear a lawsuit for prospective relief against state officials brought by an independent state agency (VOPA) seeking to enforce federal rights granted to it under the Developmental Disabilities Assi
• Jagnandan v. Giles
  538 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 52×
  Absent Congressional authorization, the Fourteenth Amendment does not, of its own force, abrogate the Eleventh Amendment's bar against retroactive monetary recovery from a state treasury, even for Fourteenth Amendment violations.
• Leroy W. Demery, M.D. v. Kupperman
  735 F.2d 1139· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The court's holding is that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials in their individual capacities for federal constitutional claims.