Ex Parte Young Doctrine

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

• The AGE OF Majority Educ. Corp. v. Preller
  512 F.2d 1241· 4th Cir.· 1975-03-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief were barred by the doctrine of unclean hands, their claims for declaratory relief were not and must be adjudicated on the merits. The district court's dismissal of the declaratory judgment claims was reversed.
• Like v. Proctor Carter
  486 F.2d 552· 8th Cir.· 1973-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the denial of injunctive relief and retroactive benefits, holding that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the state for accrued past-due benefits.
• Kennedy v. Rabinowitz
  318 F.2d 181· D.C. Cir.· 1963-04-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a suit seeking a declaratory judgment to determine if appellees are exempt from registering under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, when the Attorney General insists on registration, presents a justiciable issue and is not barred by sovereign immunity or th
• W. Pub. Co. v. McCOLGAN
  138 F.2d 320· 9th Cir.· 1943-05-21 ·cited 6×
  The court declined to exercise its discretion to grant a declaratory judgment regarding the validity of a state tax, finding the state's administrative and judicial remedies adequate.
• Palm Beach Cnty. Env't Coal. v. Florida
  651 F. Supp. 2d 1328· S.D. Fla.· 2009-07-27 ·cited 5×
  The court granted motions to dismiss, finding that sovereign immunity barred federal and state claims against state defendants, and that federal defendants were not properly served and failed to provide required notice for certain claims.
• ABC Charters, Inc. v. Bronson
  591 F. Supp. 2d 1272· S.D. Fla.· 2008-10-01 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the Florida Sellers of Travel Act Amendments likely violate the Supremacy Clause and Commerce Clause, and denied the motion to dismiss.
• Mosley v. Hairston
  920 F.2d 409· 6th Cir.· 1990-12-04 ·cited 5×
  Intervening legislative changes rendered the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief moot, and the Eleventh Amendment bars the claim for retroactive payments against state officials.
• Wood v. Fla. Dep't of Educ.
  2023 WL 6785071· N.D. Fla.· 2024-04-09 ·cited 4×
  Katie Wood, a transgender teacher in Florida, brought First Amendment and Title VII claims challenging a state law prohibiting public school employees from providing students with preferred pronouns or titles that do not correspond to their sex assigned at birth. The district cou
• Whole Woman's Health v. Jackson
  595 U.S. 30· U.S.· 2021-12-10 ·cited 4×
  Texas's Senate Bill 8, which bans abortion after approximately six weeks of pregnancy and relies on private civil enforcement rather than state officials, may be challenged in federal court through a pre-enforcement lawsuit against certain state licensing officials, but not again
• Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Md.
  566 U.S. 30· U.S.· 2012-03-20 ·cited 4×
  The Supreme Court held that the self-care leave provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act does not validly abrogate state sovereign immunity because Congress failed to identify a pattern of constitutional violations by states in administering self-care leave and the remedy is
• Cramer v. Chiles
  33 F. Supp. 2d 1342· S.D. Fla.· 1999-01-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that state officials are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for prospective injunctive relief to enforce Medicaid law, and that certain Medicaid provisions create an enforceable private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Lett v. Magnant
  965 F.2d 251· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because it applied an incorrect interpretation of the Boren Amendment's reimbursement standard, effectively collapsing the post-Boren standard into the pre-Boren 'reasonable cost' standard.
• Bonita Paschal v. Jackson
  936 F.2d 940· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal courts from awarding retroactive relief from state unemployment compensation funds, even if those funds are segregated, because such an award is considered a suit against the state.
• Thompson v. Jiro J. Enomoto (former Director
  915 F.2d 1383· 9th Cir.· 1990-10-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to modify the consent decree and that its modifications, including extending the decree's application to all death-sentenced inmates and altering benefits for Grade B inmates, were not an abuse of discretion and did not viol
• Denke v. S.D. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  829 F.2d 688· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 4×
  A suit against a state agency is barred by the Eleventh Amendment if no individual officer is joined, even if prospective relief is sought.
• SAN Francisco Cnty. Democratic Cent. Comm. v. March Fong EU
  792 F.2d 802· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-18 ·cited 4×
  California's Elections Code provisions that dictate the membership of state central committees, the term of office for committee chairs, and prohibit preprimary endorsements by central committees violate the First Amendment rights of political parties to freedom of association an
• Foulks v. Ohio Dep't OF Rehab. & Corr.
  713 F.2d 1229· 6th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Adult Parole Authority (APA) cannot be sued for money damages due to the Eleventh Amendment, and attorney's fees could still be awarded against the APA for the conduct of its officials.
• Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Ill. Dep't OF Transp.
  709 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-08 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit seeking to declare a state's statutory liability limit unconstitutional, even if compliance might indirectly affect the state treasury, as long as the suit seeks prospective relief and not direct monetary damages from the state.
• Fanty v. The Commonwealth OF Pa.
  551 F.2d 2· 3d Cir.· 1977-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity preclude a district court from ordering notice to welfare recipients about their past rights to state refunds, as this constitutes relief against the state itself for past wrongs.
• Int'l Longshoremen's Ass'n, Afl-Cio v. N.C. Ports Auth.
  511 F.2d 1007· 4th Cir.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the North Carolina Ports Authority, by entering a proprietary enterprise subject to congressional regulation, subjected itself to the Railway Labor Act and could not claim Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Vickers v. Egbert
  359 F. Supp. 2d 1358· S.D. Fla.· 2005-02-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the challenged fishing regulations were rationally related to legitimate state interests and did not violate due process or equal protection rights. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.
• NAT. RR Pass. Corp. v. Rountree Transp. & Rigging, Inc.
  896 F. Supp. 1204· M.D. Fla.· 1995-08-24 ·cited 3×
  The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) did not waive its Eleventh Amendment immunity from suit in federal court, as it did not expressly consent to be sued, and the consent of other state agencies does not bind DHSMV.
• Tamiami P'rs, Ltd. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians
  803 F. Supp. 401· S.D. Fla.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 3×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Tribe's licensing decisions due to IGRA's silence on reviewability and the Tribe's sovereign immunity, despite finding the process arbitrary and capricious.
• The Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe OF Okla. v. The Okla. TAX Comm'n
  969 F.2d 943· 10th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 3×
  The Supreme Court held that states have the authority to tax sales of cigarettes by Indian retailers on tribal lands to non-tribal members, and tribal sellers may be required to collect these taxes, despite tribal sovereign immunity.
• Seminole Tribe of Florida v. State
  801 F. Supp. 655· S.D. Fla.· 1992-06-18 ·cited 3×
  Congress validly abrogated states' Eleventh Amendment immunity through the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) by exercising its plenary power under the Indian Commerce Clause.
• Legal Env't Assistance Found., Inc. v. Pegues
  904 F.2d 640· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 3×
  The Supremacy Clause does not grant an implied cause of action for relief when the Federal Water Pollution Control Act provides specific statutory remedies.
• Ross v. Meese
  818 F.2d 1132· 4th Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's claims of constitutional violations and that it erred in dismissing the complaint.
• Ashton J. Mouton v. Sinclair OIL & GAS Co.
  410 F.2d 717· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 3×
  The court held that its prior ruling in Mississippi River Fuel Corporation v. Cocreham is dispositive of all legal contentions raised by the Collector.
• State v. Rendon
  832 So. 2d 141· Fla. 3d DCA· 2002-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The State of Florida appeals from orders granting class certification and summary judgment in a case challenging fees imposed on handicapped parking placards under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The court reverses, holding that sovereign immunity bars claims aga
• Ass'n for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Fla. Int'l Univ.
  178 F. Supp. 2d 1291· S.D. Fla.· 2001-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states under Title II of the ADA because Congress did not act pursuant to a valid constitutional authority under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to abrogate that immunity.
• Jones v. McAndrew
  996 F. Supp. 1439· N.D. Fla.· 1998-02-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a challenge to electrocution procedures, as opposed to the method of execution itself, can be brought as a Section 1983 action, not solely as a habeas corpus petition. It also found that the plaintiffs have standing and their claims are ripe, and that the Elev
• MSA Realty Corp. v. State OF Ill.
  990 F.2d 288· 7th Cir.· 1993-03-29 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit seeking injunctive relief that would require direct payments from the state treasury for the benefit of a specific entity, or that seeks to compel state officials to perform obligations that are the state's in its political capacity.
• Roller v. Cavanaugh
  984 F.2d 120· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-15 ·cited 2×
  A statutory amendment increasing the time between parole reconsiderations from one year to two years, when applied to prisoners whose crimes were committed before the amendment, constitutes an unconstitutional ex post facto law.
• Hirtz v. The State OF Tex.
  974 F.2d 663· 5th Cir.· 1992-10-14 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars plaintiffs' suit against the State of Texas because the plaintiffs waived their objection to the state being substituted as the defendant, and no exceptions to the amendment apply.
• Long v. VAN de Kamp
  961 F.2d 151· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction because there is no demonstrated connection between the Attorney General and the enforcement of the statute, nor a threat of enforcement.
• Zych v. Wrecked Vessel Believed TO BE THE "Lady Elgin
  960 F.2d 665· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment prevents federal courts from adjudicating claims against a state, even in admiralty in rem actions, if the state has a colorable claim to the property. The strength of the claim is irrelevant; its existence is sufficient to invoke immunity.
• Doucette v. Ives
  947 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1991-10-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Secretary's regulation excluding tax refund intercepts from the gap payment provision is invalid because it conflicts with 42 U.S.C. § 602(a)(28). The court also held that notice relief is not appropriate for class members who are no longer eligible for AF
• Sutton v. Evans
  918 F.2d 654· 6th Cir.· 1990-11-08 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a preliminary injunction ordering state officials to pay supplemental compensation to plaintiffs, as such relief is not ancillary to prospective relief.
• Kerr Ctr. Parents Assoc. v. Charles
  897 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the state violated the EAHCA by failing to adequately fund education for handicapped children, the district court's specific relief order was too prescriptive. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required due to futili
• Immogene Hurley v. Sec'y OF Health & Human Servs.
  676 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-26 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar prospective relief, including the restoration of benefit payments, as a necessary consequence of future compliance with federal law, even if it impacts the state treasury.
• Grosscup v. Pantano
  725 F. Supp. 2d 1370· S.D. Fla.· 2010-07-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that claims against state agencies (DCA, DEP, City) were not ripe due to lack of a final decision and were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity for DCA and DEP. Claims against federal defendants were not moot, and mandamus jurisdiction existed for one application.
• Major League Baseball v. Butterworth
  2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22021· N.D. Fla.· 2001-12-27 ·cited 1×
  The federal antitrust laws do not apply to the 'business of baseball,' including contraction, and this exemption extends to state antitrust laws.
• Florida v. United States
  133 F. Supp. 2d 1280· N.D. Fla.· 2001-03-02 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Amendment and constitutional state sovereign immunity bar a private individual from commencing and prosecuting a federal administrative proceeding against a state.
• Gerling Global Reinsurance Corp. of Am. v. Nelson
  123 F. Supp. 2d 1298· N.D. Fla.· 2000-11-11 ·cited 1×
  The State of Florida does not have jurisdiction to compel production of information regarding non-payment of insurance policies issued in Germany to German victims by German insurers with no contacts in Florida.
• Fla. Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Agency for Health Care Admin.
  47 F. Supp. 2d 1352· S.D. Fla.· 1999-04-11 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida's Medicaid Rate Plan for ICF/DD providers was inadequate and violated the Boren Amendment by failing to provide reasonable and adequate reimbursement rates, and that cluster facilities were improperly denied reimbursement under the Rate Plan.
• Hunter v. Chiles
  944 F. Supp. 914· S.D. Fla.· 1996-10-24 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Florida Medicaid must cover Augmentative Communication Devices and Services (ACDS) for both adult and child recipients as medically necessary durable medical equipment under the home health care provision or the EPSDT program, and cannot deny coverage based on
• The Am. Bank & Tr. Co. OF Opelousas v. Dent
  982 F.2d 917· 5th Cir.· 1993-02-10 ·cited 1×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against a state official seeking prospective injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional state statute, falling under the Ex parte Young exception.
• Santiago v. NEW York State Dep't OF Corr. Servs. & Dr. Melvin J. Steinhart
  945 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1991-09-10 ·cited 1×
  A suit for retroactive damages against a state directly under Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as Section 1 does not contain a clear statement abrogating immunity, nor does ratification of the Amendment constitute a waiver.
• Duarte v. Trooper Javier Rivera and Florida Highway Patrol
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-16
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Florida Highway Patrol is immune from suit in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment and that Trooper Rivera is entitled to qualified immunity on the federal claims.
• Holton v. Sudzina
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-05
  The court held that judicial assistants are entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for scheduling duties and that a First Amendment retaliation claim based on a state law violation is not cognizable under § 1983.