Ex Parte Young Doctrine

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

• Jackson v. Hayakawa
  682 F.2d 1344· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-03 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions for injunctive or declaratory relief against state officials sued in their official capacities under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that dismissal of certain defendants in their official capacities was erroneous.
• WU v. Thomas
  863 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as the plaintiffs had not failed to exhaust administrative remedies, their claims were not barred by res judicata, their retaliation claims were valid under Title VII, and sovereign immunity did not bar al
• Jackson Sawmill Co., Inc. v. The United States
  580 F.2d 302· 8th Cir.· 1978-07-12 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the bondholders' claims for inverse condemnation and impairment of contract were properly dismissed, as they failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Class v. Norton
  505 F.2d 123· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-10 ·cited 48×
  The court affirmed the award of attorneys' fees and costs against the Commissioner in his official capacity, but reversed the award against him individually, finding insufficient evidence of malice or abuse of discretion.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe OF Indians OF Florida
  177 F.3d 1212· 11th Cir.· 1999-06-07 ·cited 47×
  Tamiami Partners, Ltd. sought to enforce a gaming management agreement with the Miccosukee Tribe by compelling arbitration and recovering revenues after the Tribe terminated the agreement and denied gaming licenses to Tamiami's personnel. The Eleventh Circuit held that the distri
• Great W. United Corp. v. Kidwell
  577 F.2d 1256· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-10 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the Idaho Takeover Statute is preempted by the Williams Act and violates the Commerce Clause, and that personal jurisdiction over the Idaho Director of Finance was proper in Texas.
• Jacobson v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency
  566 F.2d 1353· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-21 ·cited 47×
  The court held that while a cause of action for inverse condemnation against the TRPA fails due to lack of condemnation authority, a due process claim under the Fifth Amendment is stated. The TRPA is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment unless immunity is waived, and off
• Peel v. Fla. Dep't OF Transp.
  600 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-13 ·cited 44×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not prevent a federal court from ordering a state agency to reinstate a former employee under the Veterans' Reemployment Rights Act, as Congress has clearly abrogated state immunity for such suits.
• Gomez v. Ill. State Bd. OF Educ. & Ted Sanders
  811 F.2d 1030· 7th Cir.· 1987-01-30 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, as the plaintiffs' allegations, if true, stated claims under the EEOA, Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI.
• Becker v. Thompson
  459 F.2d 919· 5th Cir.· 1972-05-03 ·cited 41×
  The concurring opinion argues that the majority's broad interpretation of Younger v. Harris is unnecessary and incorrect given the facts, and that federal intervention is not justified without a pending state prosecution or allegations of bad faith harassment.
• ENG v. Coughlin
  858 F.2d 889· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-04 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the denial of qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity claims are immediately appealable interlocutory orders. It affirmed summary judgment for Milligan, finding no clearly established constitutional violation, but remanded for the district court to
• United States v. The State OF Ala.
  791 F.2d 1450· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-06 ·cited 39×
  The court held that Alabama State University lacked standing to sue under Section 1983 and Title VI, and that while the Eleventh Amendment bars injunctions against the State Board itself, it permits injunctive relief against Board members in their official capacities.
• Capitol Industries-Emi, Inc. v. Bennett
  681 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1982-02-16 ·cited 39×
  The Anti-Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over Capitol's challenge to state tax assessment because California provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy. However, the Act does not bar EMI's challenge because it, as a non-taxpayer, lacks adequate state remedies.
• People OF the State OF Ill. v. Gen. Elec. Co. & S. Cal. Edison Co.
  683 F.2d 206· 7th Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Illinois Spent Fuel Act violates the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce and that federal jurisdiction was proper. The court also found that removal of the state court action was improper.
• Garland M. Fitzpatrick v. Bitzer
  519 F.2d 559· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-02 ·cited 38×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from awarding retroactive monetary damages against a state, but it does not bar an award of attorneys' fees that are ancillary to permissible prospective injunctive relief.
• Mobil OIL Corp. v. Kelley
  493 F.2d 784· 5th Cir.· 1974-05-06 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court had federal question jurisdiction over the claims against state officials, and thus pendent jurisdiction over related state law claims, affirming the district court's decision.
• Frew v. Hawkins
  540 U.S. 431· U.S.· 2004-01-14 ·cited 37×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar enforcement of a federal consent decree entered into by state officials, even if the decree imposes obligations beyond those strictly mandated by federal statute, as long as the decree was validly entered and enforcement is sought under princip
• Brennan v. Stewart
  834 F.2d 1248· 5th Cir.· 1988-01-07 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing Brennan's claims for prospective relief against the Board members in their official capacities due to the Eleventh Amendment, but affirmed the dismissal of his constitutional claims on the merits.
• Watkins v. Blinzinger
  789 F.2d 474· 7th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 36×
  States and the Secretary of Health and Human Services have the discretion to treat lump-sum payments compensating victims for personal injuries as 'income' for AFDC eligibility purposes.
• Vecchione v. Helene Wohlgemuth
  558 F.2d 150· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the state officials' attorneys had the authority to consent to the decree, and the state waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity by its conduct and failure to appeal. Therefore, the Rule 60(b) motion to vacate the consent decree was properly denied.
• Bradley v. Milliken
  540 F.2d 229· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-04 ·cited 36×
  The court affirmed the district court's student assignment plan for Detroit schools, except for its failure to address three central regions, which requires remand.
• Like v. Proctor N. Carter
  448 F.2d 798· 8th Cir.· 1971-09-16 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the state's failure to process welfare applications within the federal 30-day requirement violated federal law and constitutional rights, and that the case could proceed as a class action.
• Support Working Animals, Inc. v. Governor of Florida
  8 F.4th 1198· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-12 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because their alleged injuries were neither fairly traceable to the Attorney General's conduct nor redressable by a favorable judgment against her.
• W. Penn Power Co. v. Train
  522 F.2d 302· 3d Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge believes that an EPA notice of violation for non-compliance with an air pollution regulation is judicially reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Seminole Tribe OF Florida v. State
  11 F.3d 1016· 11th Cir.· 1994-01-18 ·cited 34×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Congress lacked constitutional power to abrogate states' sovereign immunity when enacting the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) under the Indian Commerce Clause. Although Congress clearly expressed intent to abrogate immunity by granting federal j
• Safeguard Mut. Ins. Co. v. Miller
  472 F.2d 732· 3d Cir.· 1973-01-23 ·cited 34×
  The court held that dismissal based on governmental immunity was improper without a factual record, and that injunctive relief is not subject to such immunity.
• McGUIRE v. Sadler
  337 F.2d 902· 5th Cir.· 1964-10-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the case, reversing the dismissal for want of jurisdiction.
• In re McVEY Trucking, Inc. v. Sec'y OF State OF Ill.
  812 F.2d 311· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-13 ·cited 32×
  Congress, in exercising its plenary power to enact bankruptcy legislation under Article I, may create a cause of action for money damages enforceable against a state in federal court.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  522 F.2d 81· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 32×
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe OF Indians OF Florida
  63 F.3d 1030· 11th Cir.· 1995-08-16 ·cited 30×
  The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida contracted with Tamiami Partners, Ltd. to manage its bingo gaming facility under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). When the Tribe terminated the management agreement and denied gaming licenses to Tamiami's employees, Tamiami sued
• Aluminum Co. OF Am. v. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF N.C.
  713 F.2d 1024· 4th Cir.· 1983-07-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained from exercising jurisdiction under the Burford doctrine, affirming the dismissal of the action. Federal courts should not intervene in complex state regulatory schemes involving important state policy when adequate state c
• Robert Dean Mattis, M.D. v. Patrolman Richard R. Schnarr
  502 F.2d 588· 8th Cir.· 1974-08-23 ·cited 30×
  The dissent argues that the court lacks jurisdiction because there is no actual case or controversy, as the defendants have no adverse legal interest in the constitutionality of the statutes at issue.
• Rose v. State OF Neb.
  748 F.2d 1258· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that attorney's fees are not recoverable for state administrative proceedings under EAHCA when the fee claim is based on § 1983, and modified the award to exclude the State and its Board as entities due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Allegheny Cnty. Sanitary Auth. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (EPA)
  732 F.2d 1167· 3d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 28×
  A state agency and its officials cannot be sued in federal court for alleged violations of state law, and the Water Pollution Control Act does not create a federal right of action against them. The Act also preempts claims against the EPA under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Washington v. Penwell
  700 F.2d 570· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-03 ·cited 28×
  A consent decree provision requiring state officials to fund legal services, exceeding constitutional minimums and state legislative appropriation authority, is unenforceable and can be vacated under Rule 60(b)(6) due to extraordinary circumstances.
• Garrett v. Bamford
  538 F.2d 63· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-16 ·cited 28×
  The Tax Injunction Act does not bar federal court jurisdiction when state law provides no plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for systematic, intentional racial discrimination in tax assessments.
• Rowley v. Honorable James B. McMILLAN
  502 F.2d 1326· 4th Cir.· 1974-07-26 ·cited 28×
  The court held that official immunity does not apply to suits for injunctive relief and that the federal defendants waived their objection to personal jurisdiction. The court also found that the district court did not err in granting a preliminary injunction or in ordering discov
• Bd. OF Trs. OF Ark. A & M Coll. v. Davis
  396 F.2d 730· 8th Cir.· 1968-06-24 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a suit against state officials for allegedly violating constitutional rights by wrongful dismissal is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, and the complaint states a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Gilliard v. Oswald
  552 F.2d 456· 2d Cir.· 1977-03-16 ·cited 27×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the trial court's judgment, arguing the majority engaged in improper appellate fact-finding and misapplied due process precedents regarding inmate confinement.
• Dream Defenders v. Governor of the State of Fla.
  57 F.4th 879· 11th Cir.· 2023-01-10 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Circuit certified a question about the interpretation of Florida's riot statute to the Florida Supreme Court, finding it appropriate to allow the state court to interpret the law before ruling on its constitutionality.
• Clark v. Cohen
  794 F.2d 79· 3d Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 26×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from ordering state officials to fund remedial measures necessary to undo the harmful effects of past constitutional violations, and a plaintiff's prolonged involuntary commitment without adequate procedural review or appropriate
• Arthur v. Ewald P. Nyquist
  573 F.2d 134· 2d Cir.· 1978-03-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that officials sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief are 'persons' under § 1983, and that the district court correctly applied the 'foreseeable consequences' test to find intentional segregation by city appellants.
• Bradley v. Milliken
  433 F.2d 897· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-13 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Section 12 of Michigan Act 48 is unconstitutional as it violates the Fourteenth Amendment by impeding the Detroit Board of Education's efforts to achieve racial balance in schools. The court also reversed the dismissal of the Governor and Attorney General as p
• Wagner Seed Co. (a subsidiary of Wagner Bros. Feed Corp.) v. Daggett
  800 F.2d 310· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-10 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the EPA's administrative order on its merits before an enforcement action, and that Wagner's constitutional claims were without merit.
• State OF Cal. v. Harvier
  700 F.2d 1217· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-04 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint but not the underlying action is not a final order and thus not appealable, absent special circumstances showing the action cannot be saved by amendment.
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance with a court order may be an abuse of discretion, a retroactive reversal is meaningless due to time and funds expended.
• Johnson v. Kelly
  583 F.2d 1242· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine should not be extended to cases where the state is not a party to the pending state proceedings.
• Davids v. Stan Akers
  549 F.2d 120· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts cannot intervene in state legislative decisions regarding committee appointments, as this infringes upon the state legislature's constitutional right to determine its own rules and procedures.
• Newman v. State OF Ala. & Bill Baxley
  522 F.2d 71· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-29 ·cited 24×
• Muzquiz v. City OF SAN Antonio
  520 F.2d 993· 5th Cir.· 1975-10-08 ·cited 24×
  The Pension Fund Board of Trustees is not a 'person' amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but its individual members are. The no-refund provisions of the pension statute are constitutional.