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 claims against federal defendants were barred by sovereign immunity, mootness, and lack of jurisdiction, and that the Fair Treatment of Experienced Pilots Act did not violate due process or the Takings Clause.
-
The court held that the Florida statute's 100-foot no-solicitation zone is not narrowly drawn as applied to plaintiffs' exit petitioning activities, and thus likely violates the First Amendment.
-
The court held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge zoning restrictions on religious assemblies in business districts but not in other districts for certain claims. The court found the pre-October 2006 zoning code imposed unreasonable limitations on religious assemblies'
-
The Florida Supreme Court approved amendments to Canon 7 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to extend certain restrictions applicable to judges to judicial candidates, including requirements to maintain professional competence and refrain from commenting on jurors' verdicts outside
-
Lowell Kuvin challenged Coral Gables ordinances that prohibited parking personal-use pickup trucks in residential areas, arguing they violated constitutional protections. The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the city's summary judgment, holding that the truck parking ban
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation, denying plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment and granting defendant's motion for summary judgment.
-
504 F. Supp. 2d 1293·
M.D. Fla.·
2007-05-16
The court found that the Pension Committee's denial of long-term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as there was a reasonable basis in the administrative record for the decision, despite some conflicting medical opinions.
-
The Court denied New Castle County's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff was treated differently from similarly situated entities without a rational basis, and whether a breach of contract occurred. The Court also h
-
The court granted in part and denied in part both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding some claims ripe and others barred by res judicata, and determining the appropriate standard of review for First Amendment challenges.
-
Two mixed-use residential developments challenged Orange County's denial of their applications for alternative school impact fees. The appellate court affirmed the denial, holding that under the clear language of the county ordinance, alternative impact fees may only be based on
-
424 F. Supp. 2d 1302·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-03-10
The court granted summary judgment for the defendant, finding the plaintiff's disability predated her long-term disability coverage and was a pre-existing condition.
-
The court held that while the claim for injunctive relief was moot due to the ordinance's repeal, the claim for monetary damages was not moot and the ordinance's content-based restrictions violated the First Amendment.
-
388 F. Supp. 2d 1353·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-09-15
The court held that the former wife was not entitled to the single death benefit because the plan language unambiguously excluded former spouses covered by a QDRO, and she failed to show detrimental reliance on any alleged misinterpretations.
-
395 F. Supp. 2d 1162·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-09-06
The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted because the administrator's decision to terminate benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, even under a heightened standard, given the independent medical examination.
-
403 F. Supp. 2d 1159·
S.D. Fla.·
2005-08-15
The court held that the denial of benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because the insurer reasonably relied on information from the employer that the insured had terminated employment, and the insured's contrary claims were not part of the administrative record.
-
373 F. Supp. 2d 1306·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-05-31
The court held that the defendant's interpretation of the plan granting it authority to request an independent medical examination during the appeals process was reasonable, and the plaintiff's refusal to submit to such an examination justified the termination of her long-term di
-
371 F. Supp. 2d 1352·
M.D. Fla.·
2005-04-21
The court held that the plan administrator's denial of long-term disability benefits was not wrong, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the plan and the evidence presented.
-
355 F. Supp. 2d 1311·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-12-28
The court held that the defendant's termination of long-term disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as it was supported by reasonable grounds and medical opinions.
-
The court found that the plaintiff's requested displays constituted protected private religious speech, and the analysis would proceed based on the forum classification of the relevant government property.
-
143 F. Supp. 492·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-11-18
The court held that discovery in ERISA cases applying the arbitrary and capricious standard should not be limited solely to the administrative record, but can include other facts known to the administrator.
-
350 F. Supp. 2d 993·
S.D. Fla.·
2004-09-09
The court held that the insurer's denial of long-term disability benefits was wrong because the plaintiff was unable to perform the material duties of his regular occupation, and the insurer's interpretation of the policy terms was unreasonable.
-
322 F. Supp. 2d 1376·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-06-22
The court held that limited discovery outside the administrative record is appropriate to determine the standard of review, as issues regarding the delegation of discretionary authority and the actual decision-maker remain unclear.
-
A Choice for Women, Inc. and others appealed a dismissal of their challenge to Florida's Medicaid rules restricting abortion funding to cases where the mother's life is endangered or the pregnancy results from rape or incest. The court affirmed, holding that the rules are rationa
-
301 F. Supp. 2d 1323·
M.D. Fla.·
2004-01-03
The court held that the insurance policy's definition of 'hospital' unambiguously required the facility to be licensed as such by the state, and therefore, treatment at a facility not licensed as a hospital was not covered.
-
The court held that the City's new ordinance prohibiting portable tables on sidewalks is a permissible time, place, and manner restriction that does not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause, and does not violate a prior consent order.
-
331 F. Supp. 2d 1361·
M.D. Fla.·
2003-07-22
The court held that the denial of disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious because there was a rational basis for the decision, supported by objective medical evidence and conflicting physician opinions within the administrative record.
-
Four women challenged Florida's private adoption statutes requiring constructive notice to unknown fathers by publishing intimate details about the mothers' sexual relations. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's declaratory judgment, finding the statutes
-
J.A. appeals his juvenile delinquency adjudication under Tampa's curfew ordinance, arguing it is unconstitutional. The Florida Supreme Court previously directed this court to apply strict scrutiny rather than heightened scrutiny in evaluating juvenile curfew ordinances. Upon rema
-
832 So. 2d 117·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2002-08-16
R.J.H. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance. After the Florida Supreme Court directed that strict scrutiny apply to juvenile curfew ordinances, the appellate court reversed the adjudication, finding the Tampa ordinance unconstitu
-
M.R. was adjudicated delinquent for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance. After the Florida Supreme Court directed that strict scrutiny (rather than heightened scrutiny) apply to juvenile curfew ordinances, the appellate court reversed, finding the ordinance unconstitution
-
A juvenile curfew ordinance that is broader in application than comparable ordinances and lacks statistical evidence demonstrating it is precisely tailored to address juvenile crime during curfew hours specifically fails strict scrutiny review and is unconstitutional.
-
D.N.S., a minor, appeals her adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance. After the Florida Supreme Court remanded for application of strict scrutiny rather than heightened scrutiny, the appellate court reversed the trial court's determination and
-
-
-
A local ordinance requiring cable operators to provide competitors equal access to their broadband Internet transport services unconstitutionally abridges freedom of speech and the press.
-
The court held that material issues of fact remain unresolved, precluding summary judgment, and denied the plaintiffs' motion.
-
A state agency's affirmative action program using set-asides for minority-owned businesses violates the Equal Protection Clause if it is not based on a strong evidentiary showing of past or present discrimination by the agency itself or identifiable wrongdoers.
-
983 F. Supp. 1445·
S.D. Fla.·
1997-09-17
The court found that federal statutes regulating alien eligibility for benefits are subject to rational basis review, not strict scrutiny, due to Congress's plenary power over immigration.
-
The Florida Supreme Court upheld a state statute denying filing fee rebates to minor political parties (those with less than 5% of registered voters), rejecting constitutional challenges based on equal protection and political association rights. The Court held that the statute i
-
Martin County appealed a trial court judgment awarding the Partnership injunctive relief and damages for denying comprehensive plan amendments needed for a proposed mixed-use development. The appellate court reversed, holding that the county's refusal to amend its comprehensive p
-
The Florida Department of Insurance and insurance trade associations appealed a DOAH hearing officer's order invalidating portions of proposed administrative rules regulating insurance sales by financial institutions. The court affirmed the hearing officer's determination that an
-
The Republican Party of Florida challenged an injunction that prohibited broadcast of political advertisements attacking Democratic candidates for state cabinet offices, claiming the ads violated campaign finance contribution limits. The court reversed, holding that enjoining pol
-
The court held that the time restrictions on soliciting and accepting judicial campaign contributions under Canon 7C(1) were unconstitutional as they unduly restricted First Amendment rights of speech and association without being narrowly tailored to the state's interest in prev
-
The Washington State Child Support Schedule does not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, as it is a rational means of achieving legitimate state interests and does not directly infringe upon fundamental rights.
-
The court held that the city ordinance, which banned overnight displays in a public forum but exempted government entities, violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against private speech and was not narrowly tailored to serve substantial government interests.
-
The appellate court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding that material issues of fact exist regarding whether field hockey is a "contact sport" under Title IX and whether athletic opportunities for boys were "previously limited." The court also vacated
-
A Florida county ordinance requiring candidates for elected county office to be residents for two years before qualifying was struck down as violating the equal protection clause. The court held that the two-year durational residency requirement was unreasonable and not necessary
-
-
A sentence imposed in 'years' includes calendar years, regardless of whether they contain 365 or 366 days, and does not violate due process or equal protection.
-
979 F.2d 219·
D.C. Cir.·
1992-11-13
The court held that the provision of the congressional franking statute allowing incumbents to send mass mailings to newly redistricted areas is unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments because it provides an impermissible subsidy to incumbents in contemplation of an