146 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 738 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court held that the West Virginia regulations on funeral directors' speech are permissible time, place, and manner restrictions serving a significant government interest.
-
The state's early filing requirement for presidential electors of new political parties, which burdens political participation, is unconstitutional under strict scrutiny.
-
A mandatory retirement age for judges, standing alone, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and barring a judge from the ballot due to this age does not violate First Amendment rights of association, as precedent binds the court.
-
The City's denial of an exception to use property for religious worship violated the free exercise of religion clause because the City failed to establish a sufficient secular reason for the denial and did not uniformly enforce its zoning ordinance.
-
813 F.2d 484·
1st Cir.·
1987-03-10
·cited 6×
The court held that the Act imposing a moratorium on changes in employment conditions was constitutional and affirmed the district court's decision.
-
The majority opinion violates the court's Internal Operating Procedures by contradicting a prior panel decision, and the fingerprinting requirement is constitutional.
-
The Pomerantzes challenged a deed restriction in their Woodlands Section 8 home that prohibited permanent residents under age 16, claiming it was unconstitutional after they had a baby in 1983. The court affirmed the enforcement of the restriction, holding that age-based housing
-
A city ordinance establishing a racial set-aside for public contracts is invalid because the city lacked state authority to enact it and failed to make adequate factual findings to justify the racial classification under federal law.
-
The court held that the Michigan first trimester abortion regulations are oppressive and unconstitutional as applied to clinics performing first trimester abortions.
-
The court should address the standing issue, as it is a threshold jurisdictional question, even if not briefed by the parties.
-
The court held that subsections (5) and (7) of the Act, like subsection (6), offend the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating between unions based on associational rights and ideas, requiring strict scrutiny.
-
A city ordinance regulating 'indecent' material on cable television violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee and its enforcement procedures violate due process.
-
Arizona's constitutional provision requiring state officials to resign before running for federal office in the final year of their term does not violate the U.S. Constitution's Qualifications Clause or the Equal Protection Clause.
-
The court held that Texas's licensing scheme, which requires physicians to use the designation corresponding to their degree (M.D. or D.O.), does not violate equal protection, the Texas Constitution, or the First Amendment.
-
The court should affirm the district court's judgment regarding the application of the residency requirement to ward council candidates.
-
The University's "In-State" status policy denied due process and equal protection to G-4 visa holders, and its agreement to pay tuition refunds constituted a waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
The court held that reducing AFDC benefits due to receipt of a veteran's non-service connected pension is consistent with federal law and does not violate the Constitution.
-
Section 125 of the Clean Air Act is constitutional on its face, as it is a valid exercise of Congress's Commerce Clause power and does not violate the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
-
The dissenting judges believe the case should be remanded for further evidence and findings of fact regarding the university's regulations and potential mootness.
-
A ten-year durational residency requirement for the office of State Auditor is unconstitutional as it lacks a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest and violates equal protection.
-
The court reviewed a nonfinal order requiring a dentist to produce office records in a license revocation proceeding, finding the order consistent with a prior case regarding the right to remain silent.
-
Washington's partial assumption of criminal jurisdiction based on land title classification violates the Equal Protection Clause.
-
The court held that prior Supreme Court dismissals for want of a substantial federal question, as interpreted in Hicks v. Miranda, foreclosed reconsideration of identical constitutional challenges to the Savannah ordinance.
-
The court held that the district court's finding of purposeful racial discrimination in the drawing of the 7th ward boundaries was clearly erroneous, but affirmed the district court's findings regarding other wards and claims.
-
California Code of Civil Procedure § 1222, which denies a right to appeal contempt convictions and bail pending review, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, and § 1211, permitting summary contempt punishment, was not applied in violation of Due Process.
-
The court held that a school board's decision to close a school and bus students cannot be sustained if based in part on racial hostilities, even if the ultimate goal is integration.
-
The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the Cobb County School District, having lost its party status, lacked standing to appeal the preliminary injunction as a nonparty amicus curiae.
-
James McDonough, a citizen activist removed from a Homestead city council meeting after verbally attacking a council member, sued the city and police officers claiming violations of his First Amendment and Fourth Amendment rights relating to his removal, a subsequent indefinite b
-
This case involves an appeal from trial court orders requiring nonparties to produce documents in a redistricting challenge. The First District panel initially reversed the orders on First Amendment privilege grounds, but the full court vacated that decision and certified the cas
-
357 F. Supp. 2d 1341·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-01-12
·cited 5×
The court held that the defendant's denial of long-term disability benefits was not wrong, as the plaintiff failed to submit contemporaneous medical evidence establishing she was disabled from performing her essential job duties at the time of her resignation.
-
The court held that National Advertising Company lacks standing to challenge provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance that restrict noncommercial speech because its interest in noncommercial speech is de minimis (2%).
-
Decisions on small-scale development amendments to local comprehensive land use plans are legislative, not quasi-judicial, and thus not subject to certiorari review.
-
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding a substantial likelihood of success on their First Amendment claim regarding the zoning ordinance's limitations on adult entertainment establishments.
-
The court should reverse summary judgment for the employer and grant summary judgment for the employee on her intimate association claim, finding that her constitutional interest in pursuing her intimate association outweighs any threat to the efficient operation of the governmen
-
The court held that the District of Columbia Minority Contracting Act, as applied, likely violates the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause because it lacks a strong basis in evidence to support its racial classifications and is not narrowly tailored.
-
881 F.2d 1227·
3d Cir.·
1989-08-02
·cited 5×
The New Jersey Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (LSFDA) is unconstitutional because its plain effect discriminates against interstate commerce by imposing greater burdens on sellers of out-of-state land than on sellers of in-state land under the Planned Real Estate Development Full
-
A state may constitutionally deny incarcerated convicted felons the right to vote while allowing unincarcerated convicted felons to vote, provided the distinction is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.
-
The court held that Baltimore's noise control ordinance, as applied to the amplification of political speech on public streets, is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
-
-
Florida's Supreme Court upheld the 2022 congressional redistricting plan (Enacted Plan) against a challenge that it violated the Fair Districts Amendment by diminishing Black voters' ability to elect their preferred representative in North Florida. The court held that although th
-
The court held that the Sheriff's warning signs placed on registered sex offenders' private property constitute compelled government speech, violating the First Amendment.
-
The court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court concerning whether the 2014 amendment to section 39.806(1)(f), Florida Statutes, unconstitutionally permits termination of parental rights regarding siblings without requiring proof of nexus be
-
The court held that a debt collector's pre-recorded voicemail messages left at a debtor's residence, which could be overheard by third parties, state a plausible claim under the FDCPA and FCCPA, and that such an interpretation does not violate the First Amendment.
-
Stanley Turner, convicted as a juvenile in Minnesota for a sexual offense, was arrested in Florida for failure to register as a sexual offender. The court affirmed his conviction, holding that Florida law required registration based on his out-of-state juvenile designation as a s
-
Florida's appellate court affirmed a trial court judgment striking down the state's abortion informed-consent statute (the "Women's Right to Know Act") as unconstitutional under the Florida Constitution's explicit right to privacy. The court found the statute impermissibly intrud
-
-
The court affirmed summary judgment for two condominium unit owners who challenged an amendment to the declaration of condominium that restricted leasing to nine months per twelve-month period, invalidating the amendment as arbitrary and discriminatory as applied to them since th
-
-
The court held that the City's prohibition on vertical grave decorations does not violate the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, as the plaintiffs' conduct was not substantially motivated by a tenet, practice, or custom of a larger religious system, but rather by personal
-
The court held that in a redistricting case challenging racial gerrymandering under strict scrutiny, the plaintiffs bear the ultimate burden of persuasion, but the defendants bear the burden of production to justify the race-conscious districting plan.