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 discovery into the subjective motivations of legislators for enacting a zoning ordinance is generally impermissible, even in First Amendment challenges, and that mandamus is appropriate to prevent such discovery.
-
The court held that the district court erred in finding the School District's faculty integration policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII, reversing the injunction.
-
The court held that Louisiana's dual employment law withstands equal protection scrutiny under the minimum rationality test mandated by Dukes.
-
The Maine Traveler Information Services Act unconstitutionally abridges First Amendment rights by impermissibly restricting both ideological and commercial speech.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their political affiliation was a motivating factor in their layoffs, and that fiscal restraints justified the employment decisions.
-
A city charter provision prohibiting classified civil servants from becoming candidates for public office violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the Town's complete ban on portable signs likely violates the First Amendment because it forecloses a venerable form of speech and does not leave open ample alternative channels for communication.
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida's Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act, as applied to the plaintiff, did not violate her First Amendment free speech rights because it regulated professional conduct with only an incidental effect on speech, and this reasoning from Locke v.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on its claims that it qualifies as an outdoor venue and that the challenged sections of the Jupiter Code
-
DACA recipients challenged Georgia's policy requiring its three most selective public universities to verify the "lawful presence" of admitted students, arguing the policy was preempted by federal immigration law and violated equal protection rights. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed
-
Jermaine Jackson, convicted of robbery with a firearm at age 21, challenged Florida's Youthful Offender Act as unconstitutional, arguing the age-at-sentencing requirement violates equal protection and due process. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the statute, holding that youthfu
-
The Consent Decree requiring race-conscious promotions remains legally valid because it serves a compelling interest in remedying past discrimination and is narrowly tailored.
-
The court denied rehearing en banc.
-
The court held that the Oklahoma statute prohibiting anonymous campaign literature distribution is facially overbroad and violates the First Amendment, and that attorney's fees were properly awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
-
The court held that a high-speed police pursuit of a traffic offender does not constitute an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment, nor does it violate the Fourteenth or Eighth Amendments. The court affirmed the grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
-
The court held that the prison regulation prohibiting death row inmates from attending corporate worship services did not impermissibly infringe on the inmate's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, as it was reasonably justified by institutional security concerns.
-
A township ordinance prohibiting the distribution of advertising material to residences without affirmative consent violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments because the publication is considered noncommercial speech and the ordinance is not narrowly tailored to serve a substa
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida's Individual Freedom Act, which restricts mandatory workplace trainings based on their content and viewpoint, is an unconstitutional restriction on speech, not a permissible regulation of conduct.
-
The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida appealed a temporary injunction prohibiting it from making specific statements and picketing regarding alleged animal abuse at a timeshare resort. The court reversed, holding that the injunction improperly restricted the Foundation's First
-
775 So. 2d 324·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2000-06-23
·cited 16×
J.P. appeals his adjudication of delinquency for violating Tampa's juvenile curfew ordinance, challenging its constitutionality. The court holds that the ordinance is constitutional under heightened scrutiny and affirms the adjudication.
-
The City of Jacksonville Beach sought certiorari review of a trial court decision that treated the city's denial of a small-scale development amendment application as a quasi-judicial action subject to strict scrutiny. The court held that small-scale development amendments to com
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the petition because the legislature amended the statute to exclude state attorneys from collective bargaining, but declined to rule on the statute's constitutionality due to an insufficient factual record.
-
874 F.2d 156·
3d Cir.·
1989-05-08
·cited 16×
The court held that the reduction of services to mentally retarded individuals living at home did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection or substantive due process clauses, as the state's actions were rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
-
The court held that the USIA regulations, which discriminate based on the content of films seeking certification under the Beirut Agreement, violate the First Amendment and are therefore invalid.
-
The court held that IHSA by-law 3.043, which created different eligibility rules for student athletes transferring between public and private schools, did not violate the Equal Protection or Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that the retrospective application of Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) did not violate the ex post facto clause and did not violate equal protection, as it rationally served a compelling government interest in ensuring jury determination of legal insanity.
-
755 F.2d 1192·
5th Cir.·
1985-03-28
·cited 16×
The court held that Texas's lemon law does not violate manufacturers' due process or equal protection rights, nor is it preempted by federal law.
-
741 F.2d 840·
6th Cir.·
1984-08-10
·cited 16×
The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction over state constitutional claims due to the Eleventh Amendment, and that claims against federal defendants were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
-
-
681 F.2d 898·
3d Cir.·
1982-06-17
·cited 16×
The court held that New Jersey's statute imposing higher filing fees in matrimonial actions than in other civil cases did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court affirmed the district court's orders regarding faculty and administrator layoffs, finding them to be reasonable and constitutionally permissible race-conscious remedies to preserve desegregation progress.
-
The University Interscholastic League's rule suspending athletic eligibility for attending training camps does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process or equal protection clauses.
-
The court held that granting exclusive access to a school's internal mail system to one union while denying it to a competing union violates the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.
-
The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a probability of irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting a writ of habeas corpus, finding no constitutional defect in the conviction or sentence, and that sentencing guidelines are not constitutionally mandated in non-capital cases.
-
The court held that the actions of the Liga Atlética Interuniversitaria (LAI) constitute Commonwealth action subject to constitutional scrutiny, and that the regulation discriminating against non-Puerto Rican athletes on its face requires strict judicial review.
-
The court held that a challenge to Washington's disenfranchisement laws for convicted felons raises a substantial federal question requiring a three-judge court.
-
January and Jeffrey Littlejohn challenged school officials' actions in creating a Student Support Plan for their child, who expressed a gender identity different from their parents' wishes, without parental notification or involvement under the school board's LGBTQ+ support guide
-
The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in denying a stay of execution, finding a substantial likelihood of success on the Establishment Clause claim and that other equitable factors favored the stay.
-
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of section 766.31(l)(b)1 of the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, which caps parental compensation at a single $100,000 award per claim regardless of the number of parents. The Court held that the l
-
Michael John Simmons appealed his convictions under Florida Statutes sections 847.0135 and 847.0138, which criminalize luring minors online and transmitting harmful material to minors via electronic mail. The Florida First District Court of Appeal upheld the convictions, rejectin
-
Alberto Rodriguez was convicted of resisting arrest, fleeing police, unlawful display of law enforcement indicia, and reckless driving after a high-speed motorcycle chase. The appellate court reversed his conviction for unlawfully displaying a "POLICE" shirt, finding the statute
-
Federal courts should not intervene preliminarily in state election procedures, as the state's interest in conducting its elections and the potential for federal overreach outweigh the plaintiffs' speculative claims of injury from manual recounts.
-
The appellate court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the appellants were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the exclusion of David Duke from the Republican presidential preference primary ballot violated their First
-
The court held that the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) provides the exclusive remedy for age discrimination claims, precluding a separate action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the claim is framed as a Fourteenth Amendment violation.
-
A dissenting justice argued that the defendant was entitled to a new appeal due to the trial court's improper use of collateral crimes evidence during the sentencing phase, which improperly influenced the imposition of the death penalty.
-
The court held that the differing time limits for government and individual appeals do not violate equal protection, and that untimely filing due to attorney neglect does not constitute excusable neglect to grant an extension.
-
The court held that Texas's denial of free public education to undocumented alien children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, but it does not impermissibly interfere with federal law (preemption).
-
The court held that the minority business enterprise (MBE) provision of the Public Works Employment Act of 1977 is a constitutionally valid exercise of congressional power to remedy past discrimination.
-
Social-media platforms Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok are private companies whose content-moderation decisions constitute protected editorial judgment under the First Amendment, and therefore Florida's S.B. 7072, which prohibits them from deplatforming political candidate