Ex Parte Young Doctrine

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

• Aldens, Inc. v. Packel
  524 F.2d 38· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-27 ·cited 24×
  Pennsylvania's Goods and Services Installment Sales Act can constitutionally apply to an out-of-state mail-order seller's transactions with Pennsylvania residents, as Pennsylvania has a sufficient interest and the Act does not violate the Due Process, Full Faith and Credit, or Co
• Knight v. State OF NEW York
  443 F.2d 415· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the suit against the State of New York in federal court, and that the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint to sue the Commissioner of Transportation was properly denied because the suit would still be barred by sovereign immuni
• Application of Edward E. Colton and Lillian Kaltman
  291 F.2d 487· 2d Cir.· 1961-06-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear a motion to quash an IRS summons, and that the appeal from the denial of that motion was not moot and was appealable.
• Doctor Nui Loa Price v. State OF Haw.
  764 F.2d 623· 9th Cir.· 1985-06-25 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the Hou Hawaiians do not qualify for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1362 because they are not a federally recognized tribe, but federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 exists due to the federal-state compact. However, claims against the State are
• Prisco v. United States
  851 F.2d 93· 3d Cir.· 1988-07-01 ·cited 22×
  Denial of summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds is not immediately appealable when prospective relief claims remain pending against the official. However, if an official is only sued for damages, the denial of their qualified immunity motion is appealable.
• Randall v. Lukhard
  709 F.2d 257· 4th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 22×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's ruling that Virginia's transfer of assets provision was invalid prior to the Boren-Long Amendment, and would affirm the district court's ruling on the amended plan.
• Allied Artists Picture Corp. v. Rhodes
  679 F.2d 656· 6th Cir.· 1982-06-04 ·cited 22×
  The court held that Ohio's trade screening requirement and competitive bidding guidelines are valid, but the provisions restricting advance and guaranteed payments are remanded for further consideration under the Commerce Clause.
• Mendez v. Hon. Louis B. Heller
  530 F.2d 457· 2d Cir.· 1976-02-10 ·cited 22×
  The court dismissed the case for lack of ripeness, finding that federal jurisdiction had not yet attached because the appellants had not filed a divorce complaint in state court.
• Emps. OF the Dep't OF Pub. Health & Welf. v. Dep't OF Pub. Health & Welf.
  452 F.2d 820· 8th Cir.· 1971-11-11 ·cited 22×
• Cale v. The City OF Covington
  586 F.2d 311· 4th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 21×
  The court held that there is no implied cause of action for damages against a municipality under the Fourteenth Amendment, even with federal question jurisdiction, for the acts of its employees.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  559 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 21×
• Aldine Rochester v. White
  503 F.2d 263· 3d Cir.· 1974-09-05 ·cited 21×
  State officials are 'persons' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for prospective relief, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such relief, but it does bar retroactive monetary relief against state officials.
• Alleghany Corp. v. Haase
  896 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-21 ·cited 20×
  State administrative agencies cannot concede immunity from federal law; they must comply with federal law and the Constitution without waiting for a judicial order.
• Jewellean S. Mangaroo v. Ivory V. Nelson
  864 F.2d 1202· 5th Cir.· 1989-02-08 ·cited 20×
• United States v. Lulac
  793 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without adequately assessing the validity of the PPST and its relationship to the State's legitimate interests, and vacated the injunction.
• Neal v. State OF Ga.
  469 F.2d 446· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-07 ·cited 20×
  A pro se prisoner's complaint alleging denial of correspondence with a spiritual advisor, even if inartfully pleaded, is sufficient to warrant an opportunity to present evidence and amend the complaint.
• Miller v. King
  384 F.3d 1248· 11th Cir.· 2004-09-14 ·cited 19×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court reversed as to the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for monetary damages against Warden Sikes in his individual capacity, and for injunctive relief against Sike
• Maria-Kelly F. Yniguez v. State OF Ariz.
  939 F.2d 727· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-19 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the sponsors of a ballot initiative have standing to intervene and appeal a post-judgment decision holding the initiative unconstitutional, even when the named defendant chooses not to appeal, provided they meet Article III standing requirements.
• Armstead v. Pingree
  629 F. Supp. 273· M.D. Fla.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 19×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional violations and statutory rights under § 1983 and § 504 stated a federal question. The court also granted the motion to amend the class, certifying two subclasses.
• Spicer v. Hilton
  618 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state directly under the Fourteenth Amendment is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but remanded for the plaintiff to amend his complaint to sue the appropriate state official.
• Frazier v. King
  873 F.2d 820· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-30 ·cited 18×
  The majority found that neither federal nor state claim preclusion rules barred the plaintiff's § 1983 claim. The dissenting judge disagreed with the suggestion that a federal claim preclusion rule could apply.
• Brunken v. Carol Lance & the Ill. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs.
  807 F.2d 1325· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-22 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained under Younger v. Harris, and that the father's due process claim failed because the alleged deprivation was at most negligent, not intentional. Injunctive relief against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendmen
• Edwards v. Valdez
  789 F.2d 1477· 10th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 18×
• Elliott v. Hinds
  786 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that defamation coupled with discharge can state a § 1983 claim for deprivation of a liberty interest. However, pendant state law claims are not appealable without proper certification.
• Appleyard v. Wallace
  754 F.2d 955· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification based on factual differences and in dismissing the case as moot and barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as plaintiffs have a live claim for notice relief.
• Kimble v. Solomon
  599 F.2d 599· 4th Cir.· 1979-06-05 ·cited 18×
• The Menominee Tribe OF Indians v. The United States
  388 F.2d 998· Ct. Cl.· 1967-04-14 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority's decision leaves the Menominee plaintiffs in a state of legal uncertainty by failing to definitively resolve their hunting and fishing rights.
• NIX v. Norman
  879 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against state officials in their official capacity, but prospective injunctive relief is permissible. The complaint did not clearly state a claim against the defendant in his individual capacity.
• Geis v. Bd. of Educ. of Parsippany-Troy Hills
  774 F.2d 575· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction to enforce state-mandated educational standards that exceed the federal minimum under the Education of the Handicapped Act, and that the district court did not err in finding that New Jersey's standard required a placement that
• Almond Hill Sch. v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  768 F.2d 1030· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) has a sufficiently comprehensive enforcement scheme to preclude private enforcement through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the pesticide spraying project did not constitute major federal action requir
• Banas v. Dempsey
  742 F.2d 277· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the cases on mootness and Eleventh Amendment grounds, and that Quern-type notice relief is permissible ancillary relief to prospective injunctions.
• Kollsman v. City OF LOS Angeles
  737 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding state law claims concerning land use planning regulations, as these issues were complex, uncertain, and sensitive areas of social policy best left to state courts.
• State OF Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes # 1 & # 2
  694 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1982-11-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the bankruptcy judge erred in issuing turnover orders against the State of Ohio, as the state likely possessed sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment and the orders constituted impermissible retroactive monetary awards from the state treasury.
• Harris v. Bailey
  675 F.2d 614· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the garnishment of Social Security benefits, though settled, presented a justiciable controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, thus reversing the dismissal for mootness. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Attorney General as a party.
• Washoe Tribe OF Nevada AND California v. Greenley
  674 F.2d 816· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The State of Nevada, not having been a party to the district court proceedings, lacks standing to appeal the declaratory judgment and injunction.
• Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Engman
  527 F.2d 1115· 2d Cir.· 1975-12-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that appellants were not entitled to a stay of civil penalties because they had already waived their right to judicial review of the consent orders and were contesting the interpretation, not the validity, of those orders.
• Rodriguez v. Swank
  496 F.2d 1110· 7th Cir.· 1974-05-09 ·cited 16×
  A federal court's civil contempt order imposing monetary sanctions for non-compliance with a prospective injunction requiring timely processing of AFDC applications is permissible under the Eleventh Amendment.
• Application of Robert Matherson & the Oak Beach Inn Corp. v. The Long Island State Park Comm'n & the Jones Beach Parkway Auth.
  442 F.2d 566· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Long Island State Park Commission is not an alter ego of the state and thus not immune from suit, but the case must be remanded due to lack of alleged jurisdictional amount in controversy.
• Lafayette Brown, Jr. v. Ga. Dep't OF Revenue
  881 F.2d 1018· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the employee's claim that he was denied a right to notice of his appellate rights was deficient because he had actual notice of the rules and the due process clause does not require a state to advise an employee of appellate rights in a termination letter.
• Hamid R. Kashani v. Purdue Univ.
  813 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 15×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against Purdue University and for damages against its officials in their official capacities, but not for prospective injunctive relief like reinstatement.
• Pueblo Int'l, Inc. v. de Cardona
  725 F.2d 823· 1st Cir.· 1984-01-26 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the district court properly removed the case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), allowing for the removal of pendent state claims.
• Benning v. Bd. OF Regents OF Regency Univs.
  928 F.2d 775· 7th Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment and Illinois law bar the plaintiff's tort claims against state university officials and the Board of Regents in federal court.
• The Va. Hosp. Ass'n v. Baliles
  868 F.2d 653· 4th Cir.· 1989-02-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Virginia Plan's reimbursement procedures for Medicaid patients create an enforceable right under the Medicaid Act, actionable via § 1983, and that the Act's enforcement mechanisms do not foreclose this private judicial remedy.
• Coal. FOR Basic Human Needs v. King
  654 F.2d 838· 1st Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it had appellate jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, and granted an injunction pending appeal requiring the state to resume AFDC payments, finding a likelihood of success on the statutory claim.
• Santiago v. Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana Y Vivienda de Puerto RICO
  554 F.2d 1210· 1st Cir.· 1977-05-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that it need not decide whether CRUV is a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because an injunction against its officers effectively binds CRUV.
• Solid State Circuits v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  812 F.2d 383· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the punitive damages provision of CERCLA does not violate due process when interpreted to allow a challenge to an EPA order if the party has an objectively reasonable basis for believing the order is invalid or inapplicable.
• Reverend Stephen Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk Cnty.
  115 F.4th 1306· 11th Cir.· 2024-09-16 ·cited 12×
  Reverend Jarrard, a volunteer minister at Polk County Jail, sued jail officials after being excluded from the facility's volunteer ministry program, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights to free speech. The Eleventh Circuit reversed summary judgment in favor of the ja
• Douglas v. Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal., Inc.
  565 U.S. 606· U.S.· 2012-02-22 ·cited 12×
  The Supreme Court vacated and remanded Ninth Circuit decisions that had enjoined California's Medicaid payment reductions on Supremacy Clause grounds. The Court held that after a federal agency (CMS) approved the challenged rate reductions as compliant with federal law, Medicaid
• Burlington N. R.R. Co. v. The Blackfeet Tribe OF the Blackfeet Indian Reservation
  924 F.2d 899· 9th Cir.· 1991-01-25 ·cited 12×
  Tribal officials are not immune from suit for prospective relief challenging the constitutionality of taxes, and the Tribes retain the sovereign power to tax Burlington Northern's on-reservation rights of way as they have a significant interest and receive benefits from the Tribe
• Chaloux v. Vaughn Killeen
  886 F.2d 247· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that county sheriffs, sued in their official capacities, are proper defendants for prospective relief challenging the constitutionality of state postjudgment garnishment procedures, and the Monell "official policy" requirement does not apply to such claims.