Right To Petition

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

• Warner M. Larsen v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  765 F.2d 939· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-15 ·cited 18×
  The Tax Court properly dismissed the taxpayer's petition for failure to prosecute and imposed sanctions, and the appellate court also imposes sanctions for a frivolous appeal.
• Guajardo v. Luna
  432 F.2d 1324· 5th Cir.· 1970-10-20 ·cited 18×
  There is no constitutional guarantee that non-attorneys may represent other people in litigation, and the requirement that only licensed lawyers may represent others in court is a reasonable rule.
• Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Drew Pearson
  390 F.2d 489· D.C. Cir.· 1967-12-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the denial of a temporary injunction was proper because monetary damages were an adequate remedy at law and there was no basis for equitable relief.
• Video Int'l Prod., Inc. v. Warner-Amex Cable Commc'ns, Inc.
  858 F.2d 1075· 5th Cir.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 16×
  The City of Dallas cannot be held liable under the Sherman Act or section 1983 for issuing notices of zoning violations because these notices lacked legal finality and did not constitute a final determination causing concrete injury.
• Franco v. Kelly
  854 F.2d 584· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-25 ·cited 16×
  An allegation that prison officials intentionally filed false disciplinary charges in retaliation for an inmate's exercise of a constitutional right states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that can withstand a motion for summary judgment, even if minimum procedural due pr
• Razorback Ready MIX Concrete Co., Inc. v. Weaver
  761 F.2d 484· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that defendants' actions in challenging a bond issue through litigation were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and that the plaintiff failed to allege injury to competition under the Sherman Act.
• Cleo F. Shoultz v. Monfort OF Colo., Inc.
  754 F.2d 318· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-07 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985, federal common law, or the constitutional tort doctrine, and affirmed the dismissal of the action.
• Lewis v. Blackburn
  734 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, finding that the employee's complaints were based on personal self-interest rather than matters of public concern, and thus not protected by the First Amendment.
• Miracle Mile Assocs. v. City OF Rochester
  617 F.2d 18· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the City's actions in petitioning administrative and judicial processes were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, warranting dismissal of antitrust claims, but that the action was not frivolous enough to justify attorneys' fees for the City.
• Taylor Drug Stores, Inc. v. Associated DRY Goods Corp.
  560 F.2d 211· 6th Cir.· 1977-08-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants' prior state court lawsuit to enforce a state Sunday closing law was not a sham and therefore protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, affirming summary judgment for the defendants.
• Noerr Motor Freight, Inc. v. Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference
  273 F.2d 218· 3d Cir.· 1959-12-10 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, finding that the railroads' actions constituted an antitrust conspiracy to injure and destroy the long-haul trucking industry.
• Hardyman v. Collins
  183 F.2d 308· 9th Cir.· 1950-05-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that 8 U.S.C.A. § 47(3) allows a civil action for damages against private individuals who conspire to deprive citizens of their right to assemble and petition the federal government for redress of grievances.
• Frankel v. United States
  131 F.2d 756· 6th Cir.· 1942-12-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the indicated fine, coupled with a grace period and entered on the record, constituted a valid sentence which could not be increased to a prison term after the defendant had begun to suffer punishment.
• Hollingsworth v. Brown
  788 So. 2d 1078· Fla. 1st DCA· 2001-06-05 ·cited 15×
  An inmate sued correctional officers for retaliatory conduct violating his First Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The trial court dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court affirmed, holding that the Prison Litigation Reform Act requires exhaustio
• Stefan v. Laurenitis
  889 F.2d 363· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 15×
  The court held that plaintiffs who received a $16,000 settlement in a § 1983 action are prevailing parties entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as no special circumstances justified denial.
• In re IBP Confidential Bus. Documents Litig. Hughes A. Bagley v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc.
  755 F.2d 1300· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-13 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the jury's awards for libel and tortious interference with future employment, disagreeing with the majority's reversal.
• Evers v. The Cnty. OF Custer
  745 F.2d 1196· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the County's issuance of a "Declaration of Public Road" without prior notice and an opportunity for the landowner to be heard constituted a deprivation of property without due process, and that the County could be liable under § 1983. However, the Commissioner
• First Am. Title Co. OF S.D. & First Am. Title Ins. Co. of S.D. v. S.D. Land Title Ass'n
  714 F.2d 1439· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-11 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, holding that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine protected defendants' lobbying and litigation activities, and that the state action doctrine barred antitrust claims related to state regulations.
• In re Airport CAR Rental Antitrust Litig. Budget Rent-A-Car OF Washington-Oregon, Inc. v. The HERTZ Corp. & Nat'l Car Rental Sys., Inc.
  693 F.2d 84· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-16 ·cited 14×
  The Noerr-Pennington exemption from antitrust laws protects concerted efforts to lobby public officials, even when those officials operate state-owned airports as commercial enterprises.
• Charles W. and Marlene D. Stelly v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  804 F.2d 868· 5th Cir.· 1986-11-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Stellys' arguments that wages are not taxable income and that they are entitled to an inflation adjustment are frivolous, and that the imposition of penalties under 26 U.S.C. § 6702 does not violate their First Amendment rights. The court also imposed furt
• Anselme O. Connor v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  770 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1985-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the Tax Court's dismissal of the taxpayer's petition and imposed sanctions, finding the appeal frivolous and without merit.
• Private Frank L. Huff v. Secretary OF the Navy
  575 F.2d 907· D.C. Cir.· 1978-03-15 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge would hold that multi-signature petitions are not protected communications under 10 U.S.C. § 1034 and that regulations requiring prior review are necessary for national security.
• Rodgers v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  492 F.2d 228· 9th Cir.· 1974-02-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that joint efforts to influence the electorate on legislative matters, even with anticompetitive intent, are protected under the Noerr doctrine and do not violate antitrust laws.
• Smartt v. Avery
  370 F.2d 788· 6th Cir.· 1967-01-06 ·cited 12×
  A state regulation that postpones parole eligibility for inmates seeking habeas corpus relief is unconstitutional as it deters the exercise of a present right.
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  913 F.2d 1064· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte after motions in limine without proper notice and opportunity for the plaintiff to present evidence. It also held that the plaintiff's federal claims were not barred by claim preclusion due to a
• Brownsville Golden AGE Nursing Home, Inc. v. Wells
  839 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1988-02-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that defendants' actions in reporting nursing home violations to authorities and eliciting public interest are protected by the right to petition the government and cannot serve as the basis for tort liability.
• Bradley v. United States
  817 F.2d 1400· 9th Cir.· 1987-05-22 ·cited 10×
  The IRS may assess a penalty under I.R.C. § 6702 against an individual who submits a Form 1040 stating no tax will be paid for reasons of conscience, even if not legally obligated to file.
• Indian Head, Inc. v. Allied Tube & Conduit Corp.
  817 F.2d 938· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-22 ·cited 10×
  Attempts to influence private standard-setting organizations, even if those standards are later adopted by governments, are not protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine from antitrust scrutiny.
• Westmac, Inc. v. Lon Smith
  797 F.2d 313· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-30 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues that the sham exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine should be defined by the elements of the tort of abuse of process, not by the existence of a 'colorable claim'.
• Action ON Safety AND Health v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  498 F.2d 757· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-17 ·cited 10×
• United States v. Griek
  920 F.2d 840· 11th Cir.· 1991-01-10 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a post-verdict hearing or permission to interview jurors, as such actions would violate the strong public policy protecting the secrecy of jury deliberations.
• Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
  723 F. Supp. 1467· S.D. Fla.· 1989-10-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the City of Hialeah's ordinances prohibiting ritual animal sacrifice did not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as they served compelling secular purposes and were religiously neutral in application.
• Clean-Up '84 v. Heinrich
  582 F. Supp. 125· M.D. Fla.· 1984-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction should be granted to prevent the enforcement of Fla. Stat. § 104.36, as it likely violates First Amendment rights by being overbroad and not the least restrictive means of regulating election conduct.
• Georges v. Carney
  691 F.2d 297· 7th Cir.· 1982-09-16 ·cited 8×
  The dissent argues that the 25% signature requirement and the three-question limit are unconstitutional burdens on the right to place advisory questions on the ballot, and that the lower court erred in upholding them.
• AD Visor, Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  640 F.2d 1107· 9th Cir.· 1981-03-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Berry's state court collection actions are protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and the district court abused its discretion in issuing injunctions.
• Carmichael v. Chambers Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  581 F.2d 95· 5th Cir.· 1978-09-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that her contract non-renewal was motivated by unconstitutional retaliation or that she had a protected property interest entitling her to due process.
• Lange v. United States
  443 F.2d 720· D.C. Cir.· 1971-03-22 ·cited 8×
  The Court held that the Court of General Sessions had jurisdiction over misdemeanors punishable by fine and imprisonment, and that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for obstructing a public building.
• Laughlin v. Eicher
  145 F.2d 700· D.C. Cir.· 1944-11-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a judge has the right to protect pending proceedings by dismissing an attorney whose conduct, including filing a public impeachment petition during trial and making contemptuous statements in court, makes their continued participation improper.
• Or. Natural Res. Council v. Mohla
  944 F.2d 531· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-11 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Avison's counterclaims were properly dismissed because ONRC's actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, as Avison failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for the sham exception.
• Delgado v. Smith
  861 F.2d 1489· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-04 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge held that initiative petitions are 'materials or information relating to the electoral process' and are 'provided' by the state under the Voting Rights Act, requiring bilingual materials.
• Airlines Reporting Corp. v. Garrett J. Barry
  825 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1987-07-29 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the injunction was properly issued to protect the plaintiff's remedy and that the district court did not abuse its discretion.
• Wilson v. State
  57 So. 3d 1000· Fla. 4th DCA· 2011-04-13 ·cited 6×
  Florida appellate court reversed the trial court's order striking a defendant's first postconviction relief motion under Rule 3.850, holding that Spencer's prohibition on frivolous filings cannot bar a prisoner from filing at least one initial postconviction motion.
• Harris v. Dist. BD. Trs. of Polk Cmty. Coll.
  9 F. Supp. 2d 1319· M.D. Fla.· 1998-06-18 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a First Amendment retaliation claim against President Peck and that the statute of limitations for their Whistle-blower Act claims had not yet expired, as it accrues upon discovery of the wrongful act.
• Krivanek v. The Take Back Tampa Political Comm. & Richard M. Clewis, III
  603 So. 2d 528· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-07-01 ·cited 6×
  The Supervisor of Elections refused to count signatures on a city referendum petition from voters whose names had been temporarily withdrawn from the registration rolls during a routine purge. The court held that temporarily withdrawn voters retain their legal status as qualified
• Barton's Disposal Serv., Inc. v. Tiger Corp.
  886 F.2d 1430· 5th Cir.· 1989-10-31 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, believing the jury instructions and interrogatories adequately addressed the issues and allowed for discernment of the jury's findings.
• Superior Court Trial Lawyers Ass'n v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  856 F.2d 226· D.C. Cir.· 1988-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the distinction between political and commercial activity, particularly concerning boycotts, should turn on the means employed and the presence of market power, rather than solely on the actor's subjective motivation.
• Johnston v. Koppes
  850 F.2d 594· 9th Cir.· 1988-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the denial of summary judgment was proper because triable issues of fact remained regarding whether the plaintiff's First Amendment rights were violated and whether the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity.
• Mildfelt v. Cir. Court OF Jackson Cnty.
  827 F.2d 343· 8th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the appellants sufficiently stated a claim for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, the Circuit Court of Jackson County is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and the individual defendants did not act under color
• Sherwood Webster v. SUN Co., Inc.
  790 F.2d 157· D.C. Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the common law privilege for communications to the legislature was satisfied, and the district court's finding that the sender intended to inform the legislative body was not clearly erroneous.
• Rager v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue
  775 F.2d 1081· 9th Cir.· 1985-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Tax Court did not err in upholding the Commissioner's findings of deficiency and additions to tax, and affirmed the imposition of sanctions for frivolous litigation.