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 collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of standing for two plaintiffs who were parties to the state litigation, but not for the other plaintiffs who were not parties to the state case.
-
The Powells, Black plaintiffs who won a jury verdict, appealed after learning that white jurors made racial jokes and insensitive statements during deliberations. The court affirmed the trial judge's refusal to conduct post-trial juror interviews, holding that Florida law prohibi
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of a § 1983 action challenging Florida's presidential primary ballot access statute, holding that the Presidential Candidate Selection Committee's reconsideration process constituted state action subject to constitution
-
The court held that the 100:1 sentencing disparity between cocaine and cocaine base (crack) does not violate equal protection, even when considering racial impact statistics and legislative history.
-
Summary judgment for defendants is reversed because the city has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that its race-conscious promotion decisions were necessary and narrowly tailored remedial measures for past unlawful discrimination, requiring a trial.
-
Alan Andrew Peightal, a white male who scored 98.25 on the Metropolitan Dade County Fire Department's 1983 firefighter examination (ranking 28th), was rejected for employment and filed a Title VII and Equal Protection Clause challenge to the Fire Department's affirmative action p
-
The court held that Ladue's sign ordinance is unconstitutional because it is content-based and not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest, but modified the attorneys' fee award by vacating the enhancement for contingency.
-
The court held that a restriction on a public demonstration based on the threat of listeners' violent reaction to the message is content-based and subject to strict scrutiny. However, the government has some leeway to adjust marches for public safety.
-
971 F.2d 410·
9th Cir.·
1992-08-03
·cited 4×
The court held that the distinction in sentencing penalties between cocaine base (crack) and cocaine hydrochloride (powder cocaine) under 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
-
-
The dissenting judge holds that the plaintiffs lack standing to bring their equal protection claim because they have not alleged a legally cognizable injury.
-
965 F.2d 1287·
3d Cir.·
1992-06-10
·cited 4×
New Jersey's regulations classifying recyclable hazardous by-product wastes using EPA codes do not violate the Commerce Clause or RCRA because they apply evenhandedly to in-state and out-of-state commerce and do not discriminate.
-
965 F.2d 1098·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-06-09
·cited 4×
The court held that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's dismissal of Altamont's pipeline application for incompleteness was not arbitrary or capricious, even though it foreclosed a comparative hearing under the Ashbacker doctrine.
-
962 F.2d 1374·
9th Cir.·
1992-04-27
·cited 4×
The court held that the Oregon child care system, which denies foster care benefits to children living with relatives who cannot afford to provide care, is irrational and violates the state's fiduciary duty to act in the child's best interest.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment without an evidentiary hearing, as Ohio presented material factual issues regarding its justifications for statutes that discriminated against interstate commerce.
-
A total ban on broadcast indecency is unconstitutional, and Congress cannot compel the FCC to implement such a ban, requiring the FCC to establish a safe harbor period for indecent broadcasts.
-
The court held that the statutory distinctions in 38 U.S.C. § 107, which limit benefits for Philippine Army and New Philippine Scouts veterans, are rationally based and thus constitutional under the Fifth Amendment's equal protection guarantee.
-
928 F.2d 480·
1st Cir.·
1991-03-21
·cited 4×
The court affirmed the dismissal of claims that a municipal environmental ordinance was preempted by the NLRA, violated due process/equal protection, or conflicted with state law, finding the ordinance was rationally related to legitimate municipal ends and did not impermissibly
-
919 F.2d 593·
9th Cir.·
1990-11-26
·cited 4×
The court held that the statute requiring privately-owned water utilities to reimburse customers for certain repair costs is constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause.
-
The court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that both the California Bar Examination and the local rules requiring membership in the California State Bar for admission to federal district courts are constitutional.
-
The court held that the distance ordinances, including the waiver provision, were facially valid time, place, and manner regulations and that the plaintiff's claims were barred by res judicata or failed on the merits.
-
877 F.2d 409·
5th Cir.·
1989-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that a plaintiff must present evidence of a discriminatory policy, not just a dislike for certain actions, to survive a summary judgment motion in a § 1983 claim alleging a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The court also held that it lacks jurisdiction for
-
The court held that section 6(C) places an impermissible burden on a voter's First Amendment right to support a qualified candidate of her choice.
-
870 F.2d 1242·
7th Cir.·
1989-03-13
·cited 4×
The court held that the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act's statute of limitations, which limits tolling for minors with permanent disabilities, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection or due process clauses.
-
The court held that the Arkansas Home School Act's testing requirements do not violate the Free Exercise Clause, Equal Protection Clause, or the right to privacy, as the state has a compelling interest in education and the Act is the least restrictive means to achieve it.
-
The court held that while a voter has standing to challenge ballot access laws, North Dakota's laws were not unconstitutionally restrictive, but the district court erred in denying leave to amend regarding a claim about uncounted write-in votes.
-
825 F.2d 1046·
6th Cir.·
1987-08-06
·cited 4×
The court held that the amendments to the Food Stamp Act denying benefits to striking workers, while not perfect, were rationally related to legitimate government interests and thus constitutional.
-
The court held that Iowa's reporting and teacher certification requirements do not violate plaintiffs' constitutional rights, but the "equivalent instruction" term was unconstitutionally vague as initially defined.
-
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
-
The court held that the school district's policy of laying off only white teachers, granting superseniority to black teachers, was not a narrowly tailored means to a lawful end and thus violated the Equal Protection Clause.
-
773 F.2d 1548·
11th Cir.·
1985-10-18
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in applying a heightened scrutiny standard to the equal protection challenge of the Florida statute, and that the statute has a rational basis. The court reversed the district court's judgment.
-
The court held that New York Election Law section 5-104 and Article II, section 4 of the New York Constitution are not facially unconstitutional, as they permissibly identify classes of likely transients and require them to demonstrate bona fide residency for voting purposes.
-
Missouri statutes governing new political party ballot access are constitutional, as they are neither unconstitutionally burdensome nor discriminatory.
-
The district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte because genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the statute's purpose and necessity, and the court should have the opportunity to rule on these issues first.
-
Florida statutes prohibiting signature solicitation near polling places and requiring fees for signature verification on initiative petitions are unconstitutional as they violate First Amendment rights and the Equal Protection Clause.
-
The court held that the student failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits for his constitutional claims and contract claims, thus reversing the preliminary injunction.
-
A federal regulation disqualifying individuals with a history of epilepsy from driving trucks in interstate commerce is rationally related to public safety and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, even when applied to an individual with a controlled condition and no rece
-
The court should hold Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5949(2) unconstitutional because notary public duties are ministerial and do not involve policy-making.
-
The court held that the 'set-aside' provision of the county's race-conscious ordinance, which limited competition for certain contracts exclusively among Black contractors, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but the 'goals' provision, setting a perc
-
A local regulation requiring property owners to install bulkheads on waterfront lots is a constitutional exercise of police power, does not constitute a taking without just compensation, and does not violate equal protection.
-
The United States has the authority to condemn property for the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore under the General Condemnation Act, and the "improved property" classification's January 1, 1967 cutoff date does not violate equal protection.
-
A public television station is not a public forum for First Amendment purposes, and thus can refuse to air a program without facing strict scrutiny.
-
Rock Hill's policy denying municipal employees access to speak at city council meetings on employment matters, while allowing others to speak, violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
The court held that excluding resident aliens from voting for or serving on a Community Action Agency board does not violate the Economic Opportunity Act or the Equal Protection Clause, as such roles fall under the political functions exception.
-
The court held that the plaintiff was ineligible for admission to the Ohio Bar on motion because he was not admitted to practice in another state, rendering his equal protection claim moot.
-
The court should have reheard the case en banc to address the proper methodology for substantive due process analysis and the constitutional status of private consensual homosexual activity. The Beller panel misapplied substantive due process by adopting a standardless balancing
-
The court held that the students had no constitutional entitlement to play interscholastic sports, thus no due process claim for their suspension.
-
The court held that the husband-wife rule in 7 C.F.R. § 795.11 does not violate equal protection, due process, or contract rights.
-
The court held that New Mexico's statute allowing a political party to fill a ballot vacancy after a primary, when the opposing party failed to nominate a candidate, does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
-
The court held that the Georgia child abandonment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause by creating a felony for leaving the state while only a misdemeanor for abandoning a child within the state, thereby infringing the fundamental right to travel.