Right To Petition

182 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• State v. Pettis
  520 So. 2d 250· Fla.· 1988-01-21 ·cited 398×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a conflict between district courts of appeal regarding whether the state may petition for common law certiorari to review pretrial orders in criminal cases. The Court held that while the state cannot use certiorari to circumvent the absence of a
• Myren Wayne Larson v. State
  572 So. 2d 1368· Fla.· 1991-01-03 ·cited 163×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a defendant need not make a contemporaneous objection to challenge probation conditions on appeal if those conditions are illegal, but failure to object bars appellate review of legal probation conditions unless they constitute fundamental erro
• Javier H. Londono, M.D. v. Turkey Creek, Inc.
  609 So. 2d 14· Fla.· 1992-10-29 ·cited 127×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that private parties may bring malicious prosecution claims for damages exceeding costs awarded in the underlying action, that Florida's conditional privilege doctrine adequately protects First Amendment petitioning rights without adopting a federal
• Cate v. Oldham
  707 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State of Florida in federal court, but granted preliminary injunctive relief against the State Attorney pending certification of state law questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
• United States v. Margiotta
  688 F.2d 108· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-27 ·cited 116×
  The court held that the mail fraud statute, as interpreted by the majority, is expanded beyond Congressional intent and risks prosecutorial abuse by criminalizing common political practices through a vague fiduciary duty standard.
• Clipper Exxpress v. Rocky Mountain Motor Tariff Bureau, Inc.
  690 F.2d 1240· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 97×
  The court held that the defendants' protests to the ICC were not immune from antitrust liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine because they constituted a sham exception, and that the court had jurisdiction over the appeal.
• DeMartini v. Town of Gulf Stream
  942 F.3d 1277· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-21 ·cited 93×
  Denise DeMartini, a director of Citizens Awareness Foundation (CAFI), filed a federal lawsuit claiming the Town of Gulf Stream violated her First Amendment rights by retaliating against her with a civil RICO lawsuit in response to CAFI's filing of thousands of public records requ
• Echols v. Lawton
  913 F.3d 1313· 11th Cir.· 2019-01-25 ·cited 85×
  Although the plaintiff stated a valid claim for First Amendment retaliation based on defamation, the district attorney is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
• Hardy W. Ryland and Alma Odessa Ryland v. Shapiro
  708 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 83×
  The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under section 1983 for deprivation of their constitutional right of access to the courts and that prosecutors were not entitled to absolute immunity for actions outside their quasi-judicial role.
• Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslavsky
  626 F.2d 607· 8th Cir.· 1980-07-22 ·cited 74×
  Municipal legislators are absolutely immune from damage liability for enacting zoning ordinances, and private citizens are constitutionally privileged to petition the government for legislative action.
• Esteban v. Cent. Mo. State Coll.
  415 F.2d 1077· 8th Cir.· 1969-08-28 ·cited 74×
  A federal court's review of student discipline under the Civil Rights Act requires a de novo trial on the merits of federal rights denial, not an "substantial evidence" review of the school's proceedings.
• Smith v. Coal. TO Reduce Class Size & Pre-K Comm.
  827 So. 2d 959· Fla.· 2002-09-13 ·cited 68×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that a state statute requiring fiscal impact statements on constitutional initiative ballot measures violates the Florida Constitution because such requirements are not necessary to ensure ballot integrity and impermissibly weaken the initiative pow
• Alfonse Reichenberger v. Rev. Richard Pritchard
  660 F.2d 280· 7th Cir.· 1981-09-18 ·cited 63×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 because they did not allege an actual deprivation of constitutional rights or injury, and affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the defendants.
• Feminist Women's Health Ctr., Inc. v. Mahmood Mohammad
  586 F.2d 530· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the Sherman Act's jurisdictional reach extends to the Center's activities due to their substantial effect on interstate commerce, and that most of the physicians' communications were not protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
• Krivanek v. The Take Back Tampa Political Comm.
  625 So. 2d 840· Fla.· 1993-09-30 ·cited 60×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that electors whose names have been temporarily removed from voter registration books under section 98.081 are not qualified to sign initiative petitions, rejecting the lower courts' conclusion that signing a petition constitutes written notice to r
• Cheryll Gray v. Lacke
  885 F.2d 399· 7th Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 60×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar individual-capacity claims against employees, collateral estoppel does not apply to unaddressed constitutional claims, and Wisconsin's six-year personal rights statute of limitations applies to § 1983 actions.
• In re Inquiry Concerning a Judge No. 1
  238 So. 2d 565· Fla.· 1970-06-17 ·cited 58×
  This case addresses judicial discipline for Circuit Judge Richard A. Kelly of Florida for conduct unbecoming a member of the judiciary. The Florida Supreme Court publicly reprimanded Judge Kelly for using his judicial position to seek personal publicity, filing an ex parte petiti
• Taylor v. Sterrett
  532 F.2d 462· 5th Cir.· 1976-06-01 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the restrictions in the revised paragraph 4 on handling prisoner mail are constitutionally compelled, except for the qualification allowing opening mail based on a "reasonable possibility" of contraband, which lacks persuasive justification.
• People OF the State OF NEW York v. Galamison
  342 F.2d 255· 2d Cir.· 1965-01-26 ·cited 51×
  The court held that the petitioners were not entitled to a federal trial of a state charge under the current interpretation of the statute.
• Windsor v. THE Tennessean
  719 F.2d 155· 6th Cir.· 1983-10-12 ·cited 50×
• Briscoe v. Kusper
  435 F.2d 1046· 7th Cir.· 1970-12-22 ·cited 49×
• Franchise Realty Interstate Corp. & McDonald's Sys. of Cal., Inc. v. SAN Francisco Local Joint Executive Bd. OF Culinary Workers
  542 F.2d 1076· 9th Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 47×
  The court held that the allegations did not sufficiently plead foreclosure of access, and that a reversal based on rigid pleading rules should await a case not impeding First Amendment rights.
• Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, but failed to state a cause of action under § 1985. The court also held the claim was not barred by res judicata
• Carruth v. Bentley
  942 F.3d 1047· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendants caused his injuries and that the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus affirming the grant of qualified immunity.
• Platel v. Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A.
  436 So. 2d 303· Fla. 5th DCA· 1983-08-04 ·cited 43×
  A Florida appellate court prohibited a pro se litigant from appearing without an attorney in future appeals as a plaintiff/appellant due to his abuse of court procedure through filing numerous frivolous appeals and incomprehensible pleadings that disrupted the court's operations,
• Coastal States Mktg., Inc. v. Hunt
  694 F.2d 1358· 5th Cir.· 1983-01-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the defendants' pursuit of companies dealing in nationalized Libyan oil was shielded from antitrust scrutiny by petitioning immunity, as their conduct was undertaken to obtain judicial relief and was not a sham.
• United States v. Reeves
  752 F.2d 995· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-28 ·cited 42×
• United States v. Crowthers
  456 F.2d 1074· 4th Cir.· 1972-03-20 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the government cannot selectively enforce regulations to suppress viewpoints it dislikes, nor can it impose a prior restraint on speech without objective standards. The First Amendment protects peaceful assembly and speech, even if critical of government polic
• Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. OF Peoria
  557 F.2d 580· 7th Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Park District's actions, including coercing price fixing and imposing an illegal sales tax, were not protected by the state-action exemption to antitrust laws, and thus the antitrust claim against it should not have been dismissed. The court also reversed
• Nolan v. Fitzpatrick
  451 F.2d 545· 1st Cir.· 1971-11-04 ·cited 38×
  Prisoners retain a First Amendment right to send letters to the news media concerning prison matters, and a total ban on such correspondence is unconstitutional.
• Glines v. Wade
  586 F.2d 675· 9th Cir.· 1978-10-05 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the Air Force regulations restricting petition circulation were unconstitutional and void, the district court lacked jurisdiction to award back pay exceeding $10,000.
• Batista v. Rodriguez
  702 F.2d 393· 2d Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it did not allege a causal link between the City's alleged policy and the plaintiffs' injuries, and the evidence was insufficient to prove such causation.
• High Tech Gays v. Def. Indus. Sec. Clearance Off.
  895 F.2d 563· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-02 ·cited 30×
  The court held that homosexuals do not constitute a suspect or quasi-suspect class and that the Department of Defense's policy of subjecting homosexual applicants to expanded investigations for security clearances is subject to rational basis review, not heightened scrutiny.
• Cate v. Oldham
  450 So. 2d 224· Fla.· 1984-05-03 ·cited 30×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that state officials sued in their official capacity for negligence cannot maintain malicious prosecution actions against the plaintiffs who sued them. The court grounded this decision in both common law principles protecting the right to petition g
• In re Burlington N., Inc.
  822 F.2d 518· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-14 ·cited 29×
  A lawsuit, even if improperly motivated, cannot constitute a sham under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine if it has a reasonable basis in fact and law.
• Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Miller
  820 F.2d 1245· D.C. Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 27×
  The court's holding is not a single unified one, but rather a series of concurrences and disagreements on various claims and dismissals.
• Fulwood v. Clemmer
  295 F.2d 171· D.C. Cir.· 1961-08-14 ·cited 27×
  The District Court erred in denying leave to file the petition, and the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
• Goulding v. Feinglass
  811 F.2d 1099· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's claims for lack of federal jurisdiction and properly denied his motion to amend the complaint.
• Hydro-Tech Corp. v. Sundstrand Corp.
  673 F.2d 1171· 10th Cir.· 1982-04-02 ·cited 26×
  The prosecution of a lawsuit, even if without probable cause and for an anticompetitive purpose, is protected by the First Amendment and immune from antitrust attack.
• Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. OF Peoria
  583 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court reinstated its prior judgment on antitrust claims and reversed the dismissal of a civil rights claim against the Park District, remanding for further proceedings.
• Bank OF Jackson Cnty. v. Cherry
  980 F.2d 1362· 11th Cir.· 1993-01-11 ·cited 22×
  The Bank of Jackson County appealed a district court decision affirming that FmHA officials did not violate the bank's First Amendment, liberty, or property rights when they debarred it from the Florida loan guaranty program. The bank had disputed ownership of proceeds from a for
• Wildberger v. Sgt. David Bracknell
  869 F.2d 1467· 11th Cir.· 1989-04-14 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of retaliation for filing grievances, if proven, states a constitutional claim under the First Amendment.
• Bainter v. League OF Women Voters OF Fla.
  150 So. 3d 1115· Fla.· 2014-11-13 ·cited 21×
  Florida Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's order compelling production of 538 pages of documents subpoenaed in a redistricting constitutional challenge, holding that non-parties waived any qualified First Amendment privilege by failing to timely assert it and that their tra
• Garza v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  918 F.2d 763· 9th Cir.· 1990-11-02 ·cited 21×
  The court held that a claim of intentional vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require proof that the minority group could have constituted a majority in a single-member district at the time of districting. The court affirmed the district court's findi
• City of Gainesville v. Fla. Power & Light Co.
  488 F. Supp. 1258· S.D. Fla.· 1980-04-18 ·cited 21×
  The court held that FPL's counterclaim failed to meet modern pleading requirements and was dismissed without prejudice. Claims under the Federal Power Act and Natural Gas Act were dismissed for lack of an implied private right of action.
• First Nat'l Bank OF Omaha v. The Marquette Nat'l Bank OF Minneapolis
  636 F.2d 195· 8th Cir.· 1980-11-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that state interference with a national bank's authority under the National Bank Act, even if contrary to the Act, does not give rise to a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as such authority is not a right protected by the statute and good faith lobbying and
• Delmar Lee Watson v. Dolph Briscoe
  554 F.2d 650· 5th Cir.· 1977-06-22 ·cited 20×
  The court held that claims seeking restoration of good time credits or immediate parole review are habeas corpus claims requiring exhaustion of state remedies, while claims challenging conditions of confinement may proceed. Claims of medical staff negligence do not rise to a cons
• Trucking Unlimited v. Cal. Motor Transp. Co.
  432 F.2d 755· 9th Cir.· 1970-10-05 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding the defendants' actions protected from Sherman Act liability.
• Curry v. State
  811 So. 2d 736· Fla. 4th DCA· 2002-02-27 ·cited 18×
  Paul Curry was convicted of aggravated stalking based on approximately forty complaints and public records requests he filed against Jacqueline DiCarlo with various government agencies. The Florida appellate court reversed the conviction, holding that Curry's complaints to govern
• Melva A. Schalk v. Gallemore
  906 F.2d 491· 10th Cir.· 1990-06-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the employee's speech regarding hospital waste and inefficiency constituted a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment, but the administrator was entitled to qualified immunity from individual liability.