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 Florida Supreme Court held that circuit courts have subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate fact-based challenges to legislative apportionment plans under article III, section 21 of the Florida Constitution, even after the Court has conducted its mandatory thirty-day facial
-
The State appealed a trial court's dismissal of two criminal charges against John Sholl for lewd or lascivious exhibition and transmitting material harmful to minors via electronic device. The appellate court reversed, holding that each charge had sufficient factual support, the
-
417 F. Supp. 2d 1258·
M.D. Fla.·
2006-02-14
·cited 14×
The court held that MetLife's denial of disability benefits was not arbitrary and capricious, as the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient objective medical evidence of a disabling psychiatric impairment precluding her from her own occupation.
-
The court partially reversed a summary judgment upholding Lee County's Noise Control Ordinance, finding the "plainly audible" standard and its measurement provisions unconstitutionally overbroad and vague as applied to free speech, while affirming the remainder of the ordinance a
-
Paternal grandparents challenged a trial court's finding that Florida's grandparent visitation statute (section 752.01(l)(e)) was facially unconstitutional as applied to intact families. The appellate court reversed, holding the statute does not violate parental privacy rights un
-
The court held that the School District's decision to retain a black administrator over a more senior white employee, based on race, constituted unlawful discrimination, and that the District could not justify this action under its affirmative action plan or by claiming it would
-
The court held that the city's furlough-recall amendment to its affirmative action plan was unconstitutional because it was not justified by a compelling governmental interest, as there was insufficient evidence of prior discrimination by the police department.
-
The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1154(h), which requires aliens who marry U.S. citizens while deportation proceedings are pending to reside outside the U.S. for two years, is constitutional. This provision withstands challenges under the Fifth, First, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.
-
The dissenting judge would grant the petition for review and remand to the agency, finding the DEA's denial of a religious exemption violated the Establishment Clause by preferring one religion over another without sufficient justification.
-
The court held that the Arizona obscenity statute's definition of 'appeal to the prurient interest' is constitutional, as it focuses on the material's capacity to appeal to a shameful or morbid interest, not on whether it actually arouses the average person. The cable television
-
The court held that the INS checkpoint procedures at Isla Verde airport, including initial questioning and secondary inspections, were permissible under the Fourth Amendment, but the practice of seizing passenger tickets during questioning was problematic.
-
The court held that the final 18 words of the Hollings Amendment, which targeted a single entity (Rupert Murdoch) by forbidding extensions of his temporary media ownership waivers, must be scrutinized under a standard more stringent than minimum rationality and are therefore unco
-
The court held that the prospective application of revised parole guidelines based on the initial hearing date, rather than the sentencing date, did not violate equal protection, and that the guidelines themselves are not subject to the ex post facto clause.
-
The court held that the United States Attorney's investigation into non-citizen voting was not based on discriminatory bias, but rather on a practical classification to discover fraudulent voting.
-
The court held that California's "Baby Bar" requirement, section 6060(g) of the Business and Professions Code, is constitutional under the rational basis test. The court also affirmed the dismissal of other motions as moot.
-
The court held that Connecticut's statute increasing good time credits for prisoners sentenced after October 1, 1976, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the distinction is rationally related to the legitimate state purpose of avoiding legislative encroachment on
-
The dissenting judge argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires reversal because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity and viable alternatives existed.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that while certain provisions of the Nebraska abortion regulation law unduly burdened a woman's right to an abortion under substantive due process, other provisions did not violate the Establishment or Free Exercise Clause
-
The court held that the statutory scheme for voluntary departure in immigration law, which distinguishes based on an alien's ability to pay and culpability, does not violate equal protection rights and is supported by a rational basis.
-
The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act and res judicata did not bar the federal district court from issuing a preliminary injunction against a county's enforcement of a water export restriction, as the constitutional issue was not decided in state court and the injunction ta
-
The court held that the Federal Employees Early Retirement Act does not violate the Age Discrimination in Employment Act or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
-
The federal government cannot discriminate against an illegitimate Indian child inheriting through her mother based on a presumed intent of the decedent to disfavor illegitimates.
-
The court held that the Mann Act is constitutional and that the admission of the defendant's statement and the victim's testimony was proper.
-
A two-year durational residency requirement for holding elective office in a city charter is unconstitutional as it unduly burdens the right to travel and is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decision and hold both the Civil Service regulation and the Public Works Appropriation Act invalid.
-
The court held that the statute prohibiting dishonorably discharged veterans from possessing firearms is constitutional, as it has a rational basis and does not violate Due Process, the Bill of Attainder clause, or the Ex Post Facto prohibition.
-
The Florida Second District Court of Appeal denied the State's petition for certiorari challenging a circuit court's decision that section 316.3045, which restricts car stereo volume on public streets, is unconstitutional. The court held the statute is both facially vague under t
-
The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the constitutionality of Florida's Vexatious Litigant Law (section 68.093) against a challenge under Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution. Glenn Smith, a pro se litigant with a history of five unsuccessful lawsuits within fi
-
The Florida Supreme Court struck down a statute prohibiting candidates for statewide and legislative office from accepting or soliciting campaign contributions during legislative sessions, finding it violated First Amendment free speech and associational rights. The Court held th
-
The court held that the claims of plaintiff Glancy were moot due to intervening statutory amendments, but the claims of plaintiffs Barilla, Fore, and Knight were not moot and were capable of repetition, yet evading review. The court affirmed the district court's judgment for the
-
The court held that the Army's regulations discriminating against homosexual orientation are subject to equal protection analysis and are not foreclosed by Bowers v. Hardwick.
-
822 F.2d 388·
3d Cir.·
1987-06-30
·cited 13×
The Court held that the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) does not grant Congressional consent for states to enact regulations that would otherwise violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and affirmed the district court's summary judgment because the appellants failed to allege a c
-
753 F.2d 386·
5th Cir.·
1985-02-20
·cited 13×
A union officer must prove valid authorization and reasonableness if a Section 501 plaintiff shows personal benefit from an expenditure; otherwise, the expenditure is recoverable.
-
The court considered whether a defendant is entitled to a special verdict instruction when charged with first-degree murder on alternative theories of premeditation and felony murder, and whether separate convictions for underlying felonies are permissible.
-
The Florida District Court of Appeal reversed convictions under a Daytona Beach ordinance prohibiting exposure of female breasts below the areola in establishments serving alcohol, finding the ordinance unconstitutionally vague and overbroad because lower courts had interpreted i
-
The dissent argues that the record lacks evidence of racially discriminatory purpose, which is a necessary element for an Equal Protection Clause violation, and therefore no interdistrict relief is warranted.
-
The court should protect the conjugal relationship of husband and wife from state criminalization, even if a third party is present.
-
Brandon Fleury was convicted of transmitting interstate threats and cyberstalking after he sent harassing messages on Instagram to three families who lost loved ones in the Parkland school shooting, posing as notorious serial killers and threatening kidnapping and murder. The Ele
-
The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission's recommendation to remove Circuit Judge N. James Turner from office for multiple violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct, including campaign finance violations, unauthorized practice of law while
-
In this case of first impression, the Florida District Court of Appeal clarified that Article I, Section 21 of the Florida Constitution (the access-to-courts provision) provides broader protection than the federal constitutional right of access to courts, requiring the Department
-
-
Martin County denied a landowner's request to amend the future land use map to increase residential density on 54 acres. The court held that the county's action was quasi-judicial rather than legislative, meaning it could only be reviewed by common law certiorari, not by the decl
-
The court held that New York's implementation of the federal minority business set-aside program was lawful, and that claims for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the state program were moot due to an emergency regulation suspending enforcement.
-
The court held that the First Amendment does not mandate allowing private parties to leave religious symbols in public spaces if those symbols create an appearance of government endorsement of religion.
-
953 F.2d 895·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-31
·cited 12×
The court held that the officers had reasonable suspicion for the investigatory stop based on the totality of the circumstances, and that the sentencing disparity between crack and powder cocaine does not violate constitutional due process or equal protection.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by granting summary judgment without allowing sufficient discovery, and that the appellants should be given a reasonable opportunity to pursue discovery related to discrimination.
-
Section 5 of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 contravenes the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment because it is a procedural provision that fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards.
-
934 F.2d 991·
9th Cir.·
1990-06-20
·cited 12×
The dissent argues that the INS regulations unconstitutionally deprive detained alien minors of their liberty, as the majority erred in applying a deferential standard of review and narrowly defining the constitutional right at stake.
-
The Court held that the Puerto Rico Closing Law, as amended, does not violate federal due process or equal protection, as it is rationally related to legitimate government interests and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate arbitrariness.
-
The court held that the FCC's application of section 307(b) was consistent with precedent and that its use of a qualitative enhancement for minority ownership did not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as previously established in West Michigan Broadcasting Co. v. FCC.