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 dissenting judge argues that the majority incorrectly invalidated the Illinois Ambulatory Surgical Treatment Center Act (ASTCA) and related regulations, asserting that the state has the authority to regulate surgical procedures, including abortions, for patient safety and cos
-
The statute is valid and should be given its plain reading, and the court should not issue an advisory opinion based on speculative fears of misuse.
-
Cox and Jackman, who disclosed they are homosexual, were denied the opportunity to apply for adoption under Florida Statute § 63.042(3), which prohibits homosexuals from adopting. The trial court ruled the statute unconstitutional on vagueness, privacy, due process, and equal pro
-
895 F.2d 563·
9th Cir.·
1990-02-02
·cited 30×
The court held that homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class and that the Department of Defense's policy of subjecting homosexual applicants to expanded investigations for security clearances is subject to rational basis review, not heightened scrutiny.
-
The ordinance violates the city charter by awarding contracts over $50,000 to non-lowest bidders, and its race-conscious preferences violate the Equal Protection Clause due to lack of findings of discrimination by the city itself.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of her equal protection claim.
-
950 F.3d 795·
11th Cir.·
2020-02-19
·cited 29×
Florida voters approved Amendment 4 in 2018 to automatically restore voting rights to felons who completed their sentences, but Florida's legislature implemented the amendment to require payment of all fines, fees, and restitution as a condition of re-enfranchisement. The Elevent
-
The majority's interpretation of the statute to permit booksellers to avoid criminal penalties by using 'blinder racks' is not reasonable given the statutory language.
-
The court held that the race-conscious promotional relief in the consent decree was lawful, surviving strict scrutiny because it served a compelling governmental purpose and was narrowly tailored.
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that a five-year durational residency requirement for receiving an enhanced $25,000 homestead tax exemption violates the equal protection clause of the Florida Constitution. The Court rejected the statute as failing even the rational basis test, fin
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiff was unlikely to succeed on the merits of his claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause.
-
Primera Iglesia Bautista Hispana, a religious corporation, challenged Broward County's denial of a zoning variance to operate a church on property subject to a 1,000-foot separation requirement for nonagricultural, nonresidential uses in an agricultural zoning district. The Eleve
-
The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court decision upholding Florida's exclusion of minor-party candidates from a fee-waiver provision in the state's ballot-access statute. The statute allowed candidates to waive signature-verification fees upon certification of undue burden
-
The court held that Ebel met the standard for a preliminary injunction, as there were serious questions going to the merits and the balance of hardships tipped decidedly in her favor.
-
The court held that Arizona's statutory system for regulating dentistry is protected by the state action antitrust exemption and does not violate constitutional rights to interstate travel or equal protection.
-
The Louisiana medical malpractice review panel procedure does not violate the Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, nor the due process or equal protection clauses of the Constitution.
-
The court held that while some abortion regulations are constitutional, others, particularly those requiring parental notice for mature minors or imposing strict liability without scienter, are not. The hospitalization requirement for second-trimester abortions requires further f
-
The court held that the challenged ordinance is facially unconstitutional because it is overbroad and fails to specifically define the sexual conduct it seeks to regulate.
-
The court held that the city's termination of a middle-income housing project did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, nor did it breach a contractual relationship with the project sponsor.
-
A large-lot zoning ordinance is constitutional and does not violate equal protection or due process, even if it disproportionately affects low-income individuals, as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.
-
The district court did not err in denying the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction challenging an ordinance requiring permits for protests. The court found the ordinance to be a content-neutral time, place, and manner restriction, not an impermissible prior restraint,
-
The dissenting judge believes the majority's two-step analysis for abortion regulations is not supported by Supreme Court precedent, which generally focuses on whether regulations unduly burden the right to abortion.
-
The court held that the Secretary of Consumer Affairs' compelled disclosure of financial information from Catholic schools, even if neutral on its face, unduly burdens the Free Exercise Clause and poses a threat of entanglement between church and state.
-
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of article X, section 16 of the Florida Constitution (the "net ban" amendment), which restricts certain methods of marine net fishing. The Court rejected commercial fishermen's challenges to the amendment on procedural and su
-
The court held that a minority set-aside program requires a proper statistical foundation to demonstrate a compelling governmental interest, and post-enactment studies can be considered but must allow for rebuttal by the challenging party.
-
The court held that the right to acquire long-term interests in NMI real estate is not a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution, and that Article XII of the NMI Constitution, restricting such acquisitions to persons of Northern Marianas descent, is valid. The court
-
881 F.2d 454·
7th Cir.·
1989-08-07
·cited 26×
The court held that the Army regulation barring reenlistment based on admitted homosexuality is constitutional, as it furthers substantial military interests and is not an impermissible infringement on First Amendment rights or equal protection.
-
The court held that while the Navy's decision to release Woodward may have been influenced by his homosexuality, the court affirmed the judgment because homosexual conduct is not a constitutionally protected right under the privacy or equal protection clauses, and military decisi
-
805 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1986-11-05
·cited 26×
The court held that while protective orders in civil discovery implicate the First Amendment, they do not offend it if issued upon a showing of good cause, limited to discovery, and do not restrict information gained from other sources. However, granting exclusive access to one m
-
The court held that California Civil Code section 3333.2, which limits recovery for noneconomic losses in medical malpractice suits, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that sections 6(1) and 6(4) of the Illinois Abortion Law are unconstitutionally vague and infringe upon a woman's fundamental right to choose an abortion, while sections 2(10) and 11(d) are permissible informed consent provisions.
-
A zoning ordinance that effectively bans adult movie theaters from a town abridges the First Amendment because the town has not met its burden of justifying the restrictions on protected speech.
-
The court held that a teacher's interest in breastfeeding her child during her non-duty time is a constitutionally protected liberty interest, and the complaint should not have been dismissed without fact-finding on the school board's justifications.
-
The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Geduldig v. Aiello, which addressed the Equal Protection Clause, did not require the dismissal of a Title VII claim alleging sex discrimination based on disparate treatment of pregnancy-related disabilities.
-
The court held that a prima facie case of invidious discrimination is established by a significant population disparity in a districting plan, shifting the burden to the defendants to justify it.
-
This case addresses whether a trial court may order demolition of buildings found inconsistent with a county's comprehensive land use plan. The Fourth District affirmed the trial court's authority to do so, holding that section 163.3215 of Florida's Growth Management Act establis
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that small-scale development plan amendments under Florida Statutes section 163.3187(l)(c) are legislative decisions subject to the deferential 'fairly debatable' standard of review, not quasi-judicial decisions requiring strict scrutiny. The court
-
The court held that Groves lacked standing to challenge the 1984 MBE Resolution and that Fulton County violated the Georgia low-bid statute by enacting the 1982 MBE program.
-
A mandatory maternity leave provision that forces a physically capable pregnant teacher to take leave without considering her individual ability to teach violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
378 F.3d 1232·
11th Cir.·
2004-07-28
·cited 24×
The dissenting judge argues that the majority's decision is based on an erroneous foundation that there is no substantive due process right to adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home and that promoting public morality provides a rational basis to criminally burden such priva
-
The Florida Supreme Court upheld three campaign finance statutes requiring disclosure and identification of political advertisements against a First Amendment overbreadth challenge. The court concluded the statutes were not substantially overbroad and provided narrowing construct
-
The court reversed the district court's grant of partial summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the patronage hiring system based on the indirect nature of the alleged injury.
-
The court held that 26 U.S.C. § 152(b)(3) is constitutional and does not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the fifth amendment.
-
The court held that the district court's granting of summary judgment was improper under controlling precedent.
-
The court held that Louisiana's election code provisions, which restrict the notation of a candidate's affiliation with an unrecognized political party on the ballot, do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
-
-
The court held that the ordinance's "connection with criminal elements" language is void for vagueness, violating due process, but affirmed the district court's upholding of the age restriction.
-
The court held that New York Disciplinary Rule 7-109 C, which prohibits attorneys from paying expert witnesses on a contingent fee basis, has a rational basis and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process or equal protection clauses.
-
-
The Florida Supreme Court held that Florida Statute § 843.085, which criminalizes the wearing or displaying of law enforcement indicia or titles without authorization, is unconstitutional as overbroad, vague, and violative of substantive due process because it lacks a specific in