-
893 F.2d 498·
2d Cir.·
1990-01-08
·cited 6×
The denial of a motion to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment immunity is not immediately appealable if the immunity defense cannot be decided solely as a matter of law from the face of the pleadings.
-
889 F.2d 1195·
1st Cir.·
1989-11-21
·cited 6×
A suit against a state official in their official capacity for monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is barred because state officials are not considered 'persons' under the statute. Injunctive relief was not timely sought.
-
708 F.2d 92·
2d Cir.·
1983-05-26
·cited 6×
The court affirmed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction, finding that the Eleventh Amendment precluded Beechcraft from seeking damages in federal court, thus establishing irreparable harm.
-
654 F.2d 784·
D.C. Cir.·
1981-06-05
·cited 6×
The court held that neither 18 U.S.C. § 1913 nor section 607(a) of the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act of 1979 creates a private right of action for individuals to sue government officials for allegedly unlawful lobbying. The appeal regarding pr
-
551 F.2d 152·
7th Cir.·
1977-03-10
·cited 6×
The Eleventh Amendment bars a district court order requiring state officials to send a notice to welfare applicants about their right to appeal benefit denials, as this effectively mandates retroactive payment from state funds.
-
33 F. Supp. 2d 1342·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-01-08
·cited 4×
The court held that state officials are not immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment for prospective injunctive relief to enforce Medicaid law, and that certain Medicaid provisions create an enforceable private right of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
941 F.2d 1015·
10th Cir.·
1991-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings consistent with supervening authority.
-
906 F.2d 606·
11th Cir.·
1990-07-19
·cited 4×
The court held that because the state failed to provide adequate notice of termination, recipients did not receive an overpayment and the injunction against recoupment was proper and did not violate the Eleventh Amendment.
-
873 F.2d 957·
6th Cir.·
1989-05-03
·cited 4×
The court held that section 6(C) places an impermissible burden on a voter's First Amendment right to support a qualified candidate of her choice.
-
849 F.2d 424·
9th Cir.·
1988-06-14
·cited 4×
The court held that insurance proceeds and interest paid to the state for bridge damage constitute 'costs of construction' under 23 U.S.C. § 129(a), allowing the state to collect tolls to recoup these amounts.
-
58 F.4th 1322·
11th Cir.·
2023-01-27
·cited 2×
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to dissolve the preliminary injunction, holding that the FTC could rely on § 19 of the FTC Act for asset freezes and receiverships, even after the Supreme Court limited § 13(b).
-
996 F. Supp. 1439·
N.D. Fla.·
1998-02-20
·cited 2×
The court held that a challenge to electrocution procedures, as opposed to the method of execution itself, can be brought as a Section 1983 action, not solely as a habeas corpus petition. It also found that the plaintiffs have standing and their claims are ripe, and that the Elev
-
990 F.2d 288·
7th Cir.·
1993-03-29
·cited 2×
The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit seeking injunctive relief that would require direct payments from the state treasury for the benefit of a specific entity, or that seeks to compel state officials to perform obligations that are the state's in its political capacity.
-
977 F.2d 1207·
7th Cir.·
1992-10-23
·cited 2×
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a desegregation suit against state defendants after a settlement with local defendants if the state has not fulfilled its duty to dismantle vestiges of state-imposed segregation.
-
917 F.2d 1216·
9th Cir.·
1990-10-30
·cited 2×
The court held that Washington's procedures for suspending employment disability benefits, which do not include an evidentiary hearing prior to suspension, are constitutionally sufficient under the Due Process Clause.
-
916 F.2d 312·
6th Cir.·
1990-07-25
·cited 2×
The court held that the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 creates an enforceable right for foster parents to administrative hearings regarding denial or termination of benefits.
-
676 F.2d 1177·
8th Cir.·
1982-04-23
·cited 2×
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar injunctive and declaratory relief against state officials for future conduct, even if it has an ancillary effect on the state treasury, and the CDP Fund's status requires further consideration.
-
353 F.2d 183·
2d Cir.·
1965-11-05
·cited 2×
The appeal from the denial of a temporary injunction is moot because the events sought to be restrained have already occurred.
-
47 F. Supp. 2d 1352·
S.D. Fla.·
1999-04-11
·cited 1×
The court held that Florida's Medicaid Rate Plan for ICF/DD providers was inadequate and violated the Boren Amendment by failing to provide reasonable and adequate reimbursement rates, and that cluster facilities were improperly denied reimbursement under the Rate Plan.
-
982 F.2d 917·
5th Cir.·
1993-02-10
·cited 1×
The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a suit against a state official seeking prospective injunctive relief to enjoin enforcement of an allegedly unconstitutional state statute, falling under the Ex parte Young exception.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-07-07
Parents and their minor children sued Florida's Department of Children and Families, individual DCF caseworker Kara Faso, and a hospital after the family's newborn was seized based on bruising consistent with a breech birth, and the children were placed in foster care for six mon
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-04-08
The court recommended dismissal of the case for lack of standing and Eleventh Amendment immunity, and denied the motion for summary judgment as premature.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-03-17
The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars the plaintiff's claims against the State of Florida, and the complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 8 and the Posse Comitatus Act.
-
N.D. Fla.·
2025-01-24
Claims arising after the case initiation date are dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, Fourteenth Amendment claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim, and official capacity claims are dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-03
The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity, and she failed to state a plausible claim for relief under § 1983.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-10-04
The court denied plaintiff's motion for default judgment because the amended complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for both the ADA and breach of contract claims, and service issues remained for one defendant.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2024-06-13
The Florida Supreme Court and Florida Bar are entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and cannot be sued in federal court. Gainsburg's claims against Joshua Doyle in his official capacity for equitable relief are barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which precludes fe
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-05-06
The court denied the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to adequately plead the elements of his ADA and breach of contract claims, and also raised questions about proper service and jurisdiction.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-29
Official-capacity claims are dismissed due to Eleventh Amendment immunity, but the individual-capacity failure-to-intervene claim against Defendant Gahrmann survives the motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2024-01-03
The court held that claims against supervisory defendants (Bowden, Underhill, King) for denying grievances fail to state a claim, and claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-11-22
The court denied the motion for default judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish standing and sufficiently plead a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regarding website accessibility.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-10-06
The court denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion for a temporary restraining order because they failed to establish standing, the complaint constituted a shotgun pleading, and they did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-07-07
The court held that the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged standing to bring an action for injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA, and therefore denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2023-05-10
The court held that the plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied due to sufficient income and assets, and her complaint should be dismissed without prejudice for failing to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2023-04-05
The court held that Plaintiffs Garcia and Fernández have standing to challenge the in-office lobbying restrictions, but no plaintiff has standing to challenge the post-office restrictions. The Attorney General and Chief Financial Officer are proper defendants.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-11-14
The State of Florida is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment in this § 1983 action, and therefore the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-05-24
Military servicemembers challenged a Department of Defense COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the grounds that it violated their religious freedom rights and other constitutional protections, seeking preliminary injunctive relief to prevent enforcement while the case proceeded. The cour
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-09-25
The court held that a plaintiff alleging ADA violations must demonstrate a real and immediate threat of future injury to establish Article III standing, which the plaintiff failed to do.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2020-06-23
The court held that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process and that his claims are barred by the availability of adequate state remedies, and that the arbitration claim fails due to lack of jurisdiction and the defendant not being a party to the arbitration agre
-
789 F. Supp. 884·
S.D. Fla.·
2013-09-30
The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their claims because the disabled individual had no definite intent to return to the premises after his physician terminated their relationship, and the association failed to show its members had standing.
-
5 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1530·
M.D. Fla.·
2013-02-13
The court held that joinder of numerous John Doe defendants in a BitTorrent copyright infringement case is inappropriate due to potential for individualized defenses, case management issues, and increased costs, warranting severance.
-
987 F.2d 376·
6th Cir.·
1993-03-05
The Tax Injunction Act does not bar ERISA challenges to state taxes in federal court when state courts lack jurisdiction over ERISA claims, and ERISA does not abrogate states' Eleventh Amendment immunity. Claims for prospective injunctive and declaratory relief against state offi
-
910 F.2d 130·
4th Cir.·
1990-08-06
The court held that the district court erred by not factually finding the cause of the work stoppage and that the work stoppage was not subject to the Boys Markets injunction exception.
-
562 So. 2d 407·
Fla. 4th DCA·
1990-06-06
The Fourth District Court of Appeal granted a habeas corpus petition for a detained child, finding that the trial court had violated Florida Statutes § 39.032 by detaining the child in contravention of law, and warned that judicial immunity does not shield judges from prospective
-
545 So. 2d 405·
Fla. 1st DCA·
1989-06-13
AT&T appealed the dismissal of its nuisance abatement complaint against the estate and personal representatives of deceased property owner J. Ellis Crosby. The court affirmed dismissal, holding that AT&T's claims were barred by Florida's nonclaim statute because no claim was file