Prospective Injunctive Relief

100 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Fernandez v. Chardon
  681 F.2d 42· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-08 ·cited 67×
  A class action tolls the Puerto Rican statute of limitations during its pendency for all purported class members, and when class certification is denied for lack of numerosity, the limitations period begins to run anew. The Supreme Court's decision in Delaware State College v. Ri
• Jagnandan v. Giles
  538 F.2d 1166· 5th Cir.· 1976-09-20 ·cited 52×
  Absent Congressional authorization, the Fourteenth Amendment does not, of its own force, abrogate the Eleventh Amendment's bar against retroactive monetary recovery from a state treasury, even for Fourteenth Amendment violations.
• Leroy W. Demery, M.D. v. Kupperman
  735 F.2d 1139· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 50×
  The court's holding is that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against state officials in their individual capacities for federal constitutional claims.
• United States Steel Corp. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  534 F.2d 1063· 3d Cir.· 1976-03-16 ·cited 40×
  A preliminary injunction should not have been issued against the district and international unions as there was no evidence they ordered, approved, or condoned the local union's work stoppages.
• Taylor v. Perini
  503 F.2d 899· 6th Cir.· 1974-10-03 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State and its superintendent, and that the Attorney General cannot waive sovereign immunity. Personal liability for the superintendent requires a finding of bad faith.
• GAY Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ.
  612 F.2d 160· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-20 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case, as the university and its officials could be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Eleventh Amendment immunity did not bar injunctive or declaratory relief.
• Professor Ernest F. Dube v. The State Univ. OF NEW York
  900 F.2d 587· 2d Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did address the qualified immunity defense, establishing appellate jurisdiction.
• FAY v. S. Colonie Cent. Sch. Dist.
  802 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-24 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the school district is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, that prior state proceedings did not preclude Fay's damages claims, and that the district court properly dismissed Fay's constitutional claims against the Commissioner.
• Charley's Taxi Radio Dispatch Corp. v. Sida OF Haw., Inc.
  810 F.2d 869· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 29×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against unconsenting states and their agencies in federal court, and the Parker state-action doctrine exempts state-authorized anticompetitive conduct from antitrust liability.
• Scruggs v. Moellering
  870 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1989-03-01 ·cited 28×
  A federal civil rights suit ancillary to a post-conviction proceeding, seeking an injunction to obtain an accurate transcript, requires exhaustion of state remedies and is an improper collateral attack on a conviction.
• Mullis v. United States Bankr. Court FOR the Dist. OF Nev.
  828 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-24 ·cited 28×
  The court should not distinguish between state and federal judges regarding judicial immunity from prospective injunctive relief.
• Paxman v. Campbell
  612 F.2d 848· 4th Cir.· 1980-01-02 ·cited 28×
  The maternity leave policies requiring pregnant teachers to cease teaching at mandatory times violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment under Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur. School board members sued in their individual capacities are entitled to qualif
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers OF Am.
  551 F.2d 695· 6th Cir.· 1977-02-11 ·cited 28×
  The court held that a union's refusal to cross stranger picket lines is not an arbitrable dispute subject to injunction under Boys Markets, and that injunctions against district and international unions require more than mere notice.
• Gwin v. Snow
  870 F.2d 616· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Gwin's equal protection claims challenging the Board's parole procedures and denial of compassionate leave are properly brought under section 1983 and do not require exhaustion of state remedies, reversing the district court's dismissal of these claims.
• Travelers Indem. Co. v. The Sch. Bd. OF Dade Cnty.
  666 F.2d 505· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-22 ·cited 25×
  A county school board is not protected by the Eleventh Amendment if it possesses its own funds and means to satisfy a judgment, even if the suit arises from a contract for which the state provided funding.
• Univ. OF Pittsburgh v. Champion Prods. Inc.
  686 F.2d 1040· 3d Cir.· 1982-08-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while laches may bar claims for past infringement damages, it does not necessarily bar claims for prospective injunctive relief, especially when the nature of the infringement has changed and the defendant's investment is in the general industry rather than sp
• Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp.
  673 F.2d 647· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while the appointment of a special master to supervise compliance with a court order may be an abuse of discretion, a retroactive reversal is meaningless due to time and funds expended.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  559 F.2d 241· 5th Cir.· 1977-09-14 ·cited 21×
• Miller v. King
  384 F.3d 1248· 11th Cir.· 2004-09-14 ·cited 19×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed in part and affirmed in part the district court's grant of summary judgment. The court reversed as to the plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims for monetary damages against Warden Sikes in his individual capacity, and for injunctive relief against Sike
• Armstead v. Pingree
  629 F. Supp. 273· M.D. Fla.· 1986-01-29 ·cited 19×
  The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that plaintiffs' allegations of constitutional violations and statutory rights under § 1983 and § 504 stated a federal question. The court also granted the motion to amend the class, certifying two subclasses.
• Spicer v. Hilton
  618 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 19×
  The court held that a suit for prospective injunctive relief against a state directly under the Fourteenth Amendment is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, but remanded for the plaintiff to amend his complaint to sue the appropriate state official.
• Elliott v. Hinds
  786 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that prospective injunctive relief is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that defamation coupled with discharge can state a § 1983 claim for deprivation of a liberty interest. However, pendant state law claims are not appealable without proper certification.
• Marshall v. Chala Enters., Inc.
  645 F.2d 799· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that an employer's failure to prove an express agreement with employees regarding a regular hourly rate for the first forty hours of work constitutes a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime provisions, and that restitutionary and prospective injuncti
• The Drummond Co. v. Dist. 20
  598 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 18×
  Contempt adjudications imposing unconditional fines are appealable final orders, but the injunction was improperly applied to work stoppages remote in time from the original dispute.
• NIX v. Norman
  879 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against state officials in their official capacity, but prospective injunctive relief is permissible. The complaint did not clearly state a claim against the defendant in his individual capacity.
• Stevens v. GAY
  864 F.2d 113· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies, and a plaintiff cannot recover attorney's fees under § 1988 if the state entity cannot be held liable on the merits.
• Sherral X. Kahey v. Jones
  836 F.2d 948· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-04 ·cited 15×
  Prisons are not required to provide specially tailored religious diets beyond reasonable accommodation, as such demands can impose undue burdens and costs.
• Hamid R. Kashani v. Purdue Univ.
  813 F.2d 843· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 15×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against Purdue University and for damages against its officials in their official capacities, but not for prospective injunctive relief like reinstatement.
• Thomas S. v. Morrow
  781 F.2d 367· 4th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly applied Youngberg v. Romeo principles to order the state to provide minimally adequate treatment and training for an incompetent adult ward of the state, relying on professional recommendations.
• Lupert v. The Cal. State BAR
  761 F.2d 1325· 9th Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 14×
  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.
• Council OF Commuter Orgs. v. Metro. Transp. Auth.
  683 F.2d 663· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding claims either moot, premature for lack of notice, or inadequately pleaded, and that Tri-State officials are not immune from prospective injunctive relief.
• Cap. Cities Media, Inc. v. Chester
  797 F.2d 1164· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 12×
  The majority's decision to vacate the district court's judgment and remand for development of a record on an equal protection claim is unwarranted because the complaint, even as amended, fails to state such a claim.
• Everett v. Schramm
  772 F.2d 1114· 3d Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar federal jurisdiction over claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if they require interpreting state law, and that Delaware's reduction of its AFDC standard of need did not violate federal law.
• Stones v. LOS Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  796 F.2d 270· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-01 ·cited 10×
• Jensen v. State Bd. OF TAX Comm'rs OF the State OF Ind.
  763 F.2d 272· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-21 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the district court's order compelling the State Tax Board to approve Lake County's excessive tax levy request, as it constitutes a suit against the state.
• B.H. Papasan v. United States
  756 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-05 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over claims seeking monetary relief from the state treasury, and the plaintiffs failed to state a valid prospective claim for relief under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Chiz's Motel & Rest., Inc. v. Miss. State TAX Comm'n
  750 F.2d 1305· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 10×
  The Eleventh Amendment, sovereign immunity, and quasi-judicial immunity bar the plaintiff's action in federal court.
• Hansbury v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  596 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims of post-layoff continuing discrimination under Title VII and Section 1983, as these claims were adequately alleged and potentially viable within the relevant time periods.
• Dunlop v. Davis
  524 F.2d 1278· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying a permanent injunction against future violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, despite the employer's current compliance, given his past bad faith and deceptive conduct.
• Thomas S. v. Flaherty
  902 F.2d 250· 4th Cir.· 1990-05-02 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment granting injunctive relief for a class of mentally retarded patients in public psychiatric hospitals, finding that the Secretary of the Department of Human Resources failed to provide constitutionally adequate care and treatment.
• Russell v. Dunston
  896 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that Russell was entitled to pretermination notice before his medical leave was terminated, as he had a property interest in the opportunity to apply for disability benefits.
• Barnes v. Freeman (Teek) Bosley and Paula Carter
  828 F.2d 1253· 8th Cir.· 1987-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar backpay during a stay pending appeal, but backpay must be reduced by interim earnings. Reinstatement to a comparable position is permissible if the former position no longer exists.
• Haskins v. Stanton
  794 F.2d 1273· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that private citizens have a right of action to sue state officials for violations of the Food Stamp Act, and the Eleventh Amendment does not bar such suits seeking prospective injunctive relief.
• Ona Mae Reed v. Health & Human Servs.
  774 F.2d 1270· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that personal injury awards are not 'income' for the purpose of applying the AFDC 'lump sum' rule, and that the Eleventh Amendment bars retroactive AFDC benefit payments.
• Scott v. Plante
  691 F.2d 634· 3d Cir.· 1982-10-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Youngberg v. Romeo requires reconsideration of the plaintiff's claims for prospective relief and damages in light of the professional judgment standard for treatment, care, and restraints, and that statutory rights under New Jer
• Sarteschi v. Burlein
  508 F.2d 110· 3d Cir.· 1975-01-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a civil rights action against state officials for alleged unconstitutional discharge is not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, even if relief requires official action, as long as it does not seek to collect from the state treasury.
• Smith v. Rainey
  747 F. Supp. 2d 1327· M.D. Fla.· 2010-09-30 ·cited 7×
  The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the Amended Complaint failed to state claims with facial plausibility for many counts, and that some defendants were immune from suit.
• Harris v. Bush
  106 F. Supp. 2d 1272· N.D. Fla.· 2000-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against most defendants due to lack of pleading, immunity, or Eleventh Amendment bar, and also failed to state a claim for declaratory relief.
• Rivera-Puig v. Hon. Gabriel Garcia-Rosario
  983 F.2d 311· 1st Cir.· 1992-12-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the closure provision of Rule 23(c) of the Puerto Rico Rules of Criminal Procedure is unconstitutional as it violates the First Amendment right of access to preliminary hearings, and that abstention doctrines do not apply.
• Wheaton v. Freddye Webb-Petett
  931 F.2d 613· 9th Cir.· 1991-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff had a constitutionally protected property interest in his management service employment, but not a liberty interest or a First Amendment claim. The defendant was entitled to qualified immunity for damages claims.