Ex Parte Young Doctrine

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

• Mujahid Farid v. Smith
  850 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 12×
  A prior state court judgment precludes claims for declaratory or equitable relief and relitigation of policy constitutionality, but not claims for damages where the state court lacked jurisdiction to award them.
• Serpas v. Schmidt
  827 F.2d 23· 7th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge argues that the federal court should abstain from deciding the case to allow Illinois state courts to interpret the relevant state statute and rules, which could resolve the constitutional questions.
• United States v. Charles George Trucking Co.
  823 F.2d 685· 1st Cir.· 1987-07-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the civil penalty provision of RCRA applies to violations of its information access provision, and that the appellants received adequate notice and opportunity to respond, thus satisfying due process.
• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Pub. Utils. Comm'n OF the State OF Cal.
  716 F.2d 1285· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court's dismissal was proper because res judicata, based on the California Supreme Court's denial of review, barred Southern Pacific's preemption claim.
• LOS Angeles Branch NAACP v. LOS Angeles Unified Sch. Dist.
  714 F.2d 946· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state educational agencies under the Equal Educational Opportunities Act, but it does bar suits against the Governor due to a lack of sufficient connection to the alleged unconstitutional acts.
• Union Elec. Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  593 F.2d 299· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with the pre-enforcement procedures established by the Clean Air Act, and thus, an injunction preventing EPA enforcement proceedings was improper.
• Jordan v. Trainor
  563 F.2d 873· 7th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 12×
  The en banc majority opinion improperly attempts to prescribe a constitutionally inoffensive form for state authorities to send notices, which would still result in retroactive enforcement prohibited by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Huecker v. Milburn
  538 F.2d 1241· 6th Cir.· 1976-07-21 ·cited 12×
• Norris v. The State OF Ga.
  522 F.2d 1006· 4th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that service on the prisoner's custodian in the state of confinement is sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over other states that have lodged detainers against the prisoner, allowing the court in the state of confinement to adjudicate the validity of tho
• AD HOC Comm. ON Jud. Admin. v. Commonwealth OF Mass.
  488 F.2d 1241· 1st Cir.· 1973-12-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a justiciable cause of action because the federal judiciary cannot constitutionally order the restructuring and funding of an entire state court system.
• Krause v. Rhodes
  471 F.2d 430· 6th Cir.· 1972-11-17 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the pleadings were contrived and failed to disclose valid causes of action under Section 1983, attempting to avoid dismissal by omitting crucial background facts.
• Glick v. Dr. F.M. Henderson
  855 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 11×
  The court concurred with the dismissal without prejudice, allowing for a new lawsuit to be filed.
• Everett v. Schramm
  772 F.2d 1114· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if they require interpreting state law, and that Delaware's reduction of its AFDC standard of need did not violate federal law.
• Nashoba Commc'ns Ltd. P'ship NO. 7 v. Town OF Danvers
  893 F.2d 435· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-10 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claim arose from a threatened state law contract enforcement action, not a federal question. The plaintiff's assertion of federal law was merely an anticipatory defense.
• Standard Alaska Prod. Co. v. Schaible
  874 F.2d 624· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar the Producers from seeking relief in federal court, and the claim of judicial bias is not ripe for review until presented to the state courts.
• P. Sidney Neuwirth, D.D.S. v. La. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  845 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-23 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion unnecessarily reached the merits of the case, which should have been dismissed due to a pleading defect.
• United States v. State OF Or.
  839 F.2d 635· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that residents of a state-operated training center are entitled to intervene as of right in a lawsuit filed by the United States against the state concerning conditions at the facility, as their interests are not adequately represented and the disposition of the ac
• Colonial Penn Grp., Inc. v. Colonial Deposit Co.
  834 F.2d 229· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a federal court lacks jurisdiction over a declaratory judgment action filed by a party seeking to assert a federal defense against a state law claim, even if that defense involves federal law.
• S-1 & S-2 v. C.D. Spangler, Jr.
  832 F.2d 294· 4th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appeal is moot due to a settlement, and therefore vacates the district court's order and remands for dismissal of the action, except for the ancillary claim for costs and attorney's fees.
• Wis. Hosp. Ass'n v. Reivitz
  820 F.2d 863· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar relief for the first group of hospitals based on the state's violation of a consent decree, and that the Wisconsin statute unlawfully interfered with Medicaid reimbursement rates.
• Citizens FOR John W. Moore Party v. Bd. OF Election Comm'rs OF the City OF Chicago
  781 F.2d 581· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-13 ·cited 10×
  The court certified a question of law to the Illinois Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of a statute concerning petition circulators.
• B.H. Papasan v. United States
  756 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over claims seeking monetary relief from the state treasury, and the plaintiffs failed to state a valid prospective claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Shell OIL Co. v. Noel
  608 F.2d 208· 1st Cir.· 1979-12-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that there was no 'case or controversy' under Article III of the Constitution because the plaintiff failed to allege any threat of enforcement action by the defendant state officials.
• Kinney v. Harlow F. Lenon
  447 F.2d 596· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin state court proceedings, even for juveniles, due to principles of comity and federalism, and that a claim for a declaratory judgment is also subject to these equitable principles.
• McCRIMMON v. Daley
  418 F.2d 366· 7th Cir.· 1969-10-28 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Illinois Attorney General was properly dismissed as a party and that a three-judge district court was not required. However, the trial court erred in sua sponte dismissing the entire action.
• S&M Brands, Inc. v. State of Ga. EX REL.
  925 F.3d 1198· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-29 ·cited 9×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of S&M Brands' complaint, finding no plausible claims for Contract Clause or Equal Protection violations and that the state law claim was barred by sovereign immunity.
• Sherman v. Cmty. Consol. Sch. Dist. 21 OF Wheeling Twp.
  980 F.2d 437· 7th Cir.· 1992-11-20 ·cited 9×
  Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, including the phrase 'under God,' does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
• Nat'l Ass'n of the Deaf v. State
  945 F.3d 1339· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-03 ·cited 8×
  Congress validly abrogated the states' Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under Title II of the ADA, and the Ex parte Young doctrine allows for injunctive relief against state officials for ongoing violations.
• Fla. Fam. Policy Council v. Freeman
  561 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2009-03-06 ·cited 8×
  Florida Family Policy Council, a nonprofit organization that distributes questionnaires to judicial candidates, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 3E(1) and 3E(1)(f), which require judges to disqualify themselves when their impartiality m
• Ass'n OF Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters Within the City OF NEW York v. State OF NEW York
  940 F.2d 766· 2d Cir.· 1991-07-31 ·cited 8×
  New York's lag-payroll law, which deferred wages of court employees contrary to collective bargaining agreements, violates the federal contract clause because the impairment was substantial and not reasonable and necessary to serve an important public purpose.
• Native Vill. OF Venetie I.R.A. Council v. State OF Alaska
  918 F.2d 797· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal law requires Alaska to accord full faith and credit to child-custody determinations made by the tribal courts of native villages, and that these villages can invoke federal jurisdiction under the Indian Child Welfare Act.
• Guar. Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Gates
  916 F.2d 508· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Nevada's Chapter 784 is unconstitutional on its face because it mandates confiscatory rates without providing a constitutionally adequate mechanism for insurers to obtain relief, and it cannot be sustained as a temporary emergency measure.
• Benjamin v. Malcolm
  803 F.2d 46· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-25 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal courts from issuing injunctive relief against state officials when necessary to remedy violations of federal constitutional rights, even if state law is also implicated.
• Jones v. Smith
  784 F.2d 149· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims regarding the prison mail directive 4422 should be remanded for further proceedings, while Jones's claims against O'Connor and Smith were affirmed as dismissed.
• V. O. Motors, Inc. v. Cal. State Bd. OF Equalization
  691 F.2d 871· 9th Cir.· 1982-10-28 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the suit against the California State Board of Equalization was barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as the Tax Anti-Injunction Statute does not clearly abrogate this immunity.
• Laskaris v. Thornburgh
  661 F.2d 23· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-05 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials for prospective relief, but does bar claims for retrospective relief like back pay unless the state waives immunity.
• Citizens Energy Coal. OF Ind. v. Sendak
  594 F.2d 1158· 7th Cir.· 1979-03-28 ·cited 8×
• Alcoa S.S. Co., Inc. v. Concepcion Perez Perez
  424 F.2d 433· 1st Cir.· 1970-04-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico could not assert sovereign immunity to avoid repayment of premiums exacted under duress, especially when the funds were transferred to the treasury during the pendency of litigation challenging the legality of the exaction.
• La. State Bd. OF Educ. v. Baker
  339 F.2d 911· 5th Cir.· 1964-12-11 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not shield a state agency from suit when it violates federally protected constitutional rights, even if the agency is inseparable from the state.
• Bd. OF Supervisors OF La. State Univ. v. Fleming
  265 F.2d 736· 5th Cir.· 1959-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University can be enjoined from unconstitutional action, even if considered a state agency, and that administrative remedies need not be exhausted when admission is clearly denied by policy.
• Seminole Tribe OF Florida v. State of Fla. Dep't OF Revenue
  750 F.3d 1238· 11th Cir.· 2014-05-05 ·cited 7×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar Counts I and II of the Tribe's complaint, which seek a declaratory judgment against Florida officials that the future imposition of certain fuel taxes violates the Constitution under the Indian Commerce Clause. These counts seek prospective rel
• Smith v. Rainey
  747 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-30 ·cited 7×
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Amended Complaint failed to state claims with facial plausibility for many counts, and that some defendants were immune from suit.
• Kaolelo Lambert John Ulaleo v. Paty
  902 F.2d 1395· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiffs' suit because they seek retrospective relief for a past breach of trust, not prospective relief to end an ongoing violation.
• Lussier v. State
  972 F. Supp. 1412· M.D. Fla.· 1997-07-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over the challenge to Florida's special parking permit fees because the fees constitute a tax under state law and Florida courts provide an adequate forum.
• Self-Insurance Inst. OF Am., Inc. v. Korioth
  993 F.2d 479· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court had general federal question jurisdiction and that the plaintiff association had associational standing to bring the action challenging state insurance code provisions as preempted by ERISA.
• Duran v. Garrey Carruthers
  885 F.2d 1485· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-15 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the defendants' motion to vacate parts of the consent decree, affirming the lower court's decision.
• J. Filiberto Sanitation, Inc. v. State OF NEW Jersey Dep't OF Env't Prot. & Bd. of Pub. Utils.
  857 F.2d 913· 3d Cir.· 1988-09-08 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the New Jersey regulation requiring solid waste collected in Hunterdon County to be deposited at the county's transfer station does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause.
• Matias Maestas v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the Mora Indep. Sch. Dist.
  749 F.2d 591· 10th Cir.· 1984-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the school boards and districts are arms of the state and thus immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.
• United States v. The State OF NEW York
  708 F.2d 92· 2d Cir.· 1983-05-26 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the Eleventh Amendment precluded Beechcraft from seeking damages in federal court, thus establishing irreparable harm.
• S. Pac. Transp. Co. v. Brown
  651 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the railroads' suit against the attorney general lacked a justiciable controversy because the attorney general's connection to the enforcement of the challenged statute was insufficient.