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
-
Florida homeowners challenged a five-year durational residency requirement for an enhanced homestead tax exemption as violating equal protection and due process rights. The court affirmed the statute's constitutionality, finding the rational basis test rather than strict scrutiny
-
The court held that Hawaii's Act 221, which imposed higher fees on non-residents for state small boat harbor privileges, did not violate the Equal Protection Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause. The court also found no merit in claims under the Land and Water Conservat
-
A state prisoner's claim that a particular institution lacks a work release program does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as prison administrators have discretion in establishing such programs based on reasonable policy decisions.
-
California's rule disallowing punitive damages in wrongful death actions does not violate the federal or state equal protection clauses, as the distinction rationally serves legislative purposes.
-
The court held that the university's accreditation requirement for its graduate tax program did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
-
The court held that the state's asserted government interests did not justify restricting ISKCON's religious ritual (Sankirtan) to a booth, as less restrictive means were available to address concerns like public safety, fraud, and litter.
-
The court held that the selection process for the Pennsylvania State University board of trustees does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the right to vote for university trustees is not a fundamental right requiring strict scrutiny, and the existing selection proces
-
The court held that 18 U.S.C. § 922(h) is constitutional and does not violate equal protection, and that the government need not prove the defendant received the firearm prior to any intervening intrastate movement.
-
The court held that the federal tax system's "marriage penalty" does not violate the Fifth Amendment's due process or equal protection guarantees.
-
The dissenting judge would hold that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an infringement of her constitutional equal protection rights based on age discrimination in employment.
-
The court held that the Railroad Retirement Act's requirement for husbands of female annuitants to prove dependency, while wives of male annuitants are presumed dependent, violates the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause.
-
The court held that a Milwaukee ordinance prohibiting female employees of Class B taverns from sitting with male patrons or behind the bar violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not require the state to provide bilingual instruction to non-English speaking students, as the state's action was not deemed discriminatory and the educational opportunity offered was considered equal.
-
The court held that the Virgin Islands Code § 173, as amended, is unconstitutional because it bars residents from the Territorial Scholarship Fund solely based on alienage, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
-
The father appeals a final judgment terminating his parental rights, challenging the constitutionality of sections 39.806(1)(f) and (l), Florida Statutes, and arguing insufficient evidence supported termination. The court affirmed the termination under sections 39.806(1)(f) and (
-
The court held that the Hendersons failed to state a claim because their complaint lacked critical facts to establish a violation of their First Amendment rights, specifically regarding the noise provision in their permit.
-
The court held that New York Penal Law § 240.35(1), prohibiting loitering for the purpose of begging, violates the First Amendment because it is an overbroad restriction on speech and expressive conduct in a traditional public forum.
-
The court held that the right to intrastate travel exists and is protected by substantive due process, but the ordinance is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court also rejected the overbreadth challenge as inapplicable outside
-
The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction because the alleged harm was dissipated by the passage of the 1978 election, rendering the request for interim relief moot.
-
The court denied the suggestion for rehearing en banc, with a statement clarifying the scope and impact of the panel's prior opinion.
-
Paul Eknes-Tucker, a reverend and parent, along with other parents and transgender minors, challenged Alabama's Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, which prohibits prescribing puberty-blocking medications and cross-sex hormones to minors, arguing the law violated the
-
William Henry, a state representative, challenged Alabama's grand jury secrecy law, arguing that it violated his First Amendment free speech rights by prohibiting him from disclosing his testimony and other information he learned while testifying before a grand jury investigating
-
Robert Otto and Julie Hamilton challenged ordinances enacted by the City of Boca Raton and Palm Beach County that prohibited licensed therapists from providing sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) to minors, arguing the ordinances violated their First Amendment rights. The El
-
Joseph Morrissey, a homosexual man, sought to deduct over $55,000 in expenses for identifying, retaining, and compensating an egg donor and gestational surrogate as medical care under I.R.C. § 213. The Eleventh Circuit held that these expenses do not qualify as deductible medical
-
Howard Fox appealed a civil contempt order for violating a settlement agreement with his condominium association. The trial court prohibited Fox from posting about the Hamptons or Association on any website, blog, or social media. The appellate court held that the blanket prohibi
-
Florida appealed a trial court's temporary injunction blocking enforcement of a 2015 law imposing a 24-hour waiting period for abortion procedures. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court's injunction order deficient in factual findings, evidentiary support, and leg
-
The court held that the termination of parental rights was supported by substantial, competent evidence and that the challenged statute was constitutional.
-
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and injunction, holding that Florida's Firearm Owners Privacy Act (the Act) does not facially violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the Act's provisions restr
-
Law firms that represented Aaron Edwards in a medical malpractice case against a state entity sought $2.5 million in attorneys' fees, but the legislature's claims bill limiting such fees to $100,000 was upheld as a constitutional exercise of legislative authority that does not im
-
The court granted plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the Amended Law likely violates the First Amendment by chilling protected speech and association.
-
Florida appealed a trial court's order dismissing charges against O'Daniels for violating Miami Beach's street performance ordinance, which banned all street performances and art vending except in eleven designated permit locations. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the
-
291 F. Supp. 2d 1347·
S.D. Fla.·
2003-08-13
·cited 6×
The court held that the heightened arbitrary and capricious standard of review applies to ERISA benefit denials when the plan grants discretion and the administrator has a conflict of interest, and that review is limited to the administrative record.
-
The court held that individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity and that suits against them in their official capacities are duplicative. The court also found the plaintiff has standing to challenge certain provisions of the sign ordinance as an overbreadth issue but
-
88 F. Supp. 2d 1364·
S.D. Fla.·
2000-03-23
·cited 6×
The court held that the term 'mental, psychoneurotic or personality disorder' in the disability plan is ambiguous, and construing it against the insurer, plaintiff's interpretation that his depression is physically based is reasonable, entitling him to benefits.
-
The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal quashed a circuit court order that suspended the Board's revocation of S.A. Williams Corporation's preliminary approval to operate a landfill. The court held that equitable estoppel did not apply because Williams failed to act in good fa
-
The regulation's broad ban on privately reimbursed travel expenses for federal employees speaking on official matters is an unconstitutional infringement on First Amendment rights because it is overinclusive and potentially discriminatory.
-
The court held that the City's 'banding' of promotion examination scores, which allows for race to be considered as a factor in promotion decisions within statistically derived bands, is a legally valid affirmative action measure under Title VII, the Equal Protection Clause, and
-
The court held that the district court's conclusion that probable cause supported the arrest was not clearly erroneous, despite a significant racial component.
-
-
-
The court held that the student's free exercise and equal protection claims failed because the state's academic credit requirements were neutral, generally applicable laws, and that the parents' claims were barred by the statute of limitations and lack of standing.
-
925 F.2d 83·
4th Cir.·
1991-02-05
·cited 6×
Prison regulations requiring identification and marking of special mail are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and thus constitutional.
-
Section 19 of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 169, is unconstitutional because it facially discriminates among religions and fails strict scrutiny and the Lemon test. The statute cannot be construed to avoid this constitutional defect.
-
The court held that federal courts should abstain from deciding the case pending a decision from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the interpretation of a state administrative directive.
-
The court held that parents have a fundamental right to name their children, and the state's interest in administrative convenience is not compelling enough to override this right.
-
888 F.2d 706·
10th Cir.·
1989-11-01
·cited 6×
The court held that the Appeals Council's decision denying social security benefits was not supported by substantial evidence, as it improperly discounted the claimant's treating physician's opinion and ignored significant non-exertional limitations.
-
The Gregorys challenged two development orders rezoning neighboring property from agricultural to commercial and mobile home park uses, asserting the City failed to make required findings of consistency with its comprehensive plan. The trial court rendered judgment for the defend
-
The court must consider four factors to grant a preliminary injunction: likelihood of prevailing on merits, irreparable injury, harm to opposing parties, and public interest.
-
The court held that the Serrano Law's restrictions on community school board membership are constitutional under the First Amendment, as they serve a rational state interest in deterring political influence and are not unduly burdensome.
-
The court held that a school district's rule requiring good citizenship for participation in off-campus vocational programs, when applied to a student adjudicated delinquent, does not violate the Equal Protection Clause under a rational basis review.