Right To Petition

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

• Energy Conservation, Inc. v. Heliodyne, Inc.
  698 F.2d 386· 9th Cir.· 1983-02-01 ·cited 6×
• Norwood W. Hope v. City OF Gainesville
  355 So. 2d 1172· Fla.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 6×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a municipal zoning ordinance requiring a four-fifths supermajority vote to approve zoning changes when 20% of affected property owners file written protests. The court rejected constitutional challenges based on due process, equal protection, and
• Md. Pub. Interest Research Grp. v. Elkins
  565 F.2d 864· 4th Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 6×
  The University's restriction on using student activity fees for litigation by a student organization does not violate the First Amendment, as the University is not obligated to fund such activities and has legitimate interests in avoiding misrepresentation and financial liability
• Griffin v. Lavon Breckenridge
  410 F.2d 817· 5th Cir.· 1969-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985(3) does not reach private conspiracies to interfere with Fourteenth Amendment rights, adhering to the precedent set in Collins v. Hardyman.
• Brandhove v. Tenney
  183 F.2d 121· 9th Cir.· 1950-06-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a complaint alleging a state legislative committee's actions were intended to intimidate and punish a citizen for exercising his free speech rights stated a claim under federal civil rights statutes, but a claim against a mayor acting independently was properl
• City of Miami v. Airbnb
  260 So. 3d 478· Fla. 3d DCA· 2018-12-05 ·cited 5×
  The temporary injunction against the City's vacation rental ban was reversed as overbroad because Miami 21, which predated the state preemption statute's June 1, 2011 cutoff, is not preempted and permits short-term rentals as long as the property's predominant use remains permane
• Don's SOD Co., Inc. v. Dep't of Revenue
  661 So. 2d 896· Fla. 5th DCA· 1995-10-13 ·cited 5×
  Don's Sod Company challenges tax assessments totaling over $172,000 but failed to comply with Florida's statutory bond and payment requirements before filing suit. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, hol
• Havoco OF Am., Ltd. v. Hollobow
  702 F.2d 643· 7th Cir.· 1983-03-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that defendants' actions in complaining to regulatory bodies and filing a lawsuit were privileged under Illinois law and the First Amendment, and thus could not form the basis for a tortious interference claim.
• Fla. Fam. Ass'n v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  494 F. Supp. 2d 1311· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation, granting summary judgment for the defendant because the email blocking was due to volume concerns, not content, and the plaintiffs failed to establish municipal liability based on policy or custom.
• Knop v. Johnson
  977 F.2d 996· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while prisoners have a constitutional right to access the courts, this right does not mandate the provision of attorneys, and the remedies ordered by the lower courts were overly intrusive.
• W. Farms Assocs. v. State Traffic Comm'n OF THE State OF Conn.
  951 F.2d 469· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-03 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a party intervening in an administrative proceeding under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act does not possess a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause, nor does it have a First Amendment right to participate in ex parte meetings or a r
• Columbia Pictures Indus., Inc. v. Prof'l Real Est. Invs., Inc.
  944 F.2d 1525· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-24 ·cited 4×
  The Ninth Circuit held that a lawsuit brought with probable cause is not a sham under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, even if the plaintiff did not subjectively believe it was meritorious, and affirmed summary judgment for the movie studios on antitrust counterclaims.
• Hoeber v. Local 30
  939 F.2d 118· 3d Cir.· 1991-07-30 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of the NLRB's petition for an injunction, finding that the union's lawsuit to enforce an arbitral award did not constitute an unfair labor practice and that injunctive relief was not just and proper.
• United States v. Barker
  942 F.2d 585· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-17 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction for presenting false claims, that the statute does not require an offsetting undercharge, and that the expert witness was qualified.
• Hillery C. Thorne, Jr. v. Bailey
  846 F.2d 241· 4th Cir.· 1988-05-05 ·cited 4×
  The statute is unconstitutional because it is overbroad and abridges freedom of speech, and it was unconstitutionally applied to Thorne's conduct.
• Shamie v. City OF Pontiac
  620 F.2d 118· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a first-time liquor license applicant, did not possess a property interest protected by due process, even with a court-ordered agreement for reasons for denial. The court also found no merit in claims of equal protection or right to petition
• Taxation With Representation v. United States
  585 F.2d 1219· 4th Cir.· 1978-10-30 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the government's selective tax treatment of lobbying expenses, favoring certain organizations over others, violates equal protection principles.
• Valdez v. Black
  446 F.2d 1071· 10th Cir.· 1971-07-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding the National Guard's standard of conduct, the district attorney's immunity, and the submission of probable cause issues to the jury were proper, and that the dismissal of claims related to the Coyote meeting was also correct.
• United States v. Pipefitters Local Union NO. 562
  434 F.2d 1127· 8th Cir.· 1970-11-24 ·cited 4×
• Baugh v. Jud. Inquiry & Review Comm'n
  907 F.2d 440· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Virginia Code section 2.1-37.13, which prohibits disclosure of the filing of a complaint with the Judicial Inquiry and Review Commission, is a content-based regulation of speech subject to strict scrutiny. The court also reversed the dismissal of the claim tha
• Christian Gospel Church, Inc. v. City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  896 F.2d 1221· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-27 ·cited 3×
  A zoning provision requiring a conditional use permit for churches in residential neighborhoods does not violate the Free Exercise Clause or Equal Protection Clause, and opposition to such a permit is protected by the First Amendment.
• Dartland v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  681 F. Supp. 1539· S.D. Fla.· 1988-03-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that a public employee's speech on matters of public concern is protected by the First Amendment unless the employer can demonstrate that the speech significantly impaired government efficiency, and that the employer's interest in efficiency outweighs the employee'
• Henry v. City of Tallahassee
  149 F. Supp. 2d 1324· N.D. Fla.· 2001-02-14 ·cited 2×
  A public employee's speech in administrative charges and lawsuits concerning personal grievances, even if touching on matters of public interest, does not constitute speech on a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment.
• Nat'l Ass'n OF Radiation Survivors v. Derwinski
  994 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the $10 attorney fee limitation for VA benefits claims does not violate due process or First Amendment rights for IR claimants, reversing the district court's decision.
• Boyle v. Burke
  925 F.2d 497· 1st Cir.· 1991-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken before the 1986 amendment to the V.R.R.A. and for constitutional claims, but not necessarily for actions taken after the 1986 amendment or for bad faith implementation of the amended policy.
• Hoffmann v. The Mayor
  905 F.2d 229· 8th Cir.· 1990-06-11 ·cited 2×
  A public employee's grievance filing, concerning only their personal employment dispute and not raising broader issues of public interest, does not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment.
• Dunwoody Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. DeKALB Cnty.
  887 F.2d 1455· 11th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to establish state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the litigation had not resulted in an immediately enforceable state court judgment, and private parties invoking state procedures are not state actors without more.
• Suburban Restoration Co., Inc. v. Acmat Corp.
  700 F.2d 98· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Connecticut law would interpret its statutes to exempt from liability activities excluded from the Sherman Act by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, even if not constitutionally mandated.
• Manson Garreaux v. Andrus
  676 F.2d 1206· 8th Cir.· 1982-05-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that federal courts cannot compel the Secretary of the Interior to consider a petition for a Secretarial election absent compliance with tribal constitutional requirements and federal regulations, citing the limitations on implied remedies under the Indian Civil Ri
• Diaz v. Bd. of Cnty. Com'rs of Dade Cnty.
  502 F. Supp. 190· S.D. Fla.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a preliminary injunction to prevent a referendum vote on a proposed ordinance is not warranted because the ordinance is not facially unconstitutional and the issue of its constitutionality is not ripe for adjudication.
• Nickens v. White
  622 F.2d 967· 8th Cir.· 1980-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the prisoner failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact and did not diligently pursue discovery.
• Satiacum v. Laird
  475 F.2d 320· D.C. Cir.· 1972-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the proposed memorial services were not partisan and thus the denial of their use of the cemetery was likely erroneous, potentially infringing on religious freedom.
• Burnside v. State OF Neb.
  378 F.2d 915· 8th Cir.· 1967-06-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that it lacked authority to restore forfeited good time because the appellant would not be eligible for release even if the time were restored.
• Frederick T. Boulware, Jr., M.D. v. State OF Nev.
  960 F.2d 793· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the defendants' actions in initiating and prosecuting the state court action were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, thus barring the plaintiff's antitrust, civil rights, and unfair trade practice claims.
• Bradley v. Hon. Wallace E. Sturgis
  541 So. 2d 766· Fla. 5th DCA· 1989-04-13 ·cited 1×
  Petition for mandamus denied as moot because the underlying habeas corpus petition was already denied, but the court clarified that Florida's Constitution requires clerks to receive, docket, and deliver habeas corpus petitions without delay and at no cost.
• Lewis v. Pensacola Police Dep't
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-11-25
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss the case for failure to comply with court orders.
• Christine Scott *p* v. State
  Fla. 4th DCA· 2023-08-02
  This case addresses whether the Florida Constitution provides broader free speech rights on private property than the U.S. Constitution. The court held that it does not, affirming a conviction for trespass.
• Garcia v. Stillman
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-02-28
  The court held that plaintiffs René Garcia and Javier Fernández have standing to challenge the in-office lobbying restrictions, but no plaintiff has standing to challenge the post-office restrictions.
• McSwain v. World Fuel Servs. Corp.
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-12-14
  The court granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on the defendant's counterclaim, finding it lacked merit, but denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees under Florida's Anti-SLAPP statute.
• Scott v. State
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-10
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading subject to dismissal and that she was not entitled to injunctive relief.
• Bluegreen Vacations Unlimited, Inc. v. Timeshare Termination Team, LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-06-17
  Bluegreen Vacations sued timeshare termination service defendants, alleging they falsely advertised guaranteed contract cancellation services and engaged in coordinated schemes involving false advertising, tortious interference, and fraud that caused timeshare owners to default o
• Innova Inv. Grp., LLC v. Vill. of Key Biscayne
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-04-30
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead a First Amendment retaliation claim under § 1983 because the alleged retaliatory conduct would not deter a person of ordinary firmness and the temporal proximity was too attenuated to infer a causal connection.
• Innova Inv. Grp., LLC v. Vill. of Key Biscayne
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-11-18
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for excessive fines and takings were impermissible collateral attacks on a final administrative order and were time-barred, the First Amendment claim was inadequately pleaded, and the declaratory relief claim was dependent on the dismiss
• Alphonso James, Sr. v. Amira Dajani Fox
  Fla.· 2020-08-27
  A state prisoner who has filed thirty-four meritless petitions over nearly three decades may be barred from filing future pro se pleadings related to his criminal cases and referred for disciplinary action under Florida Statute § 944.279.
• Bobcat N. Am., LLC v. Inland Waste Holdings, LLC
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2019-04-26
  The court granted Bobcat's motion for partial summary judgment regarding the redemption of Rollover Equity and repayment of $530,000, finding that Inland assumed the risk of the Memphis Expansion's nonoccurrence and that its defenses of prevention and impossibility were foreclose
• Est. of Jackson ex rel. Jackson-Platts v. Sandnes
  854 F. Supp. 2d 478· M.D. Fla.· 2014-02-03
  The court granted the motion to dismiss because the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the alleged conduct by private defendants did not constitute state action and much of the conduct was protected by litigation privilege.
• Signori v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n
  1990 WL 132554· S.D. Fla.· 2013-03-27
  An assignee of a mortgage cannot be held liable under TILA for violations that were not apparent on the face of the disclosure documents at the time of the assignment.
• Jackson v. Tucker
  99 So. 3d 614· Fla. 1st DCA· 2012-10-23
  Jackson petitioned for habeas corpus relief claiming he was entitled to additional gain-time credits and immediate release from the Florida Department of Corrections. The circuit court refused to file his habeas petition due to his failure to submit an indigency affidavit or pay
• Citizens for Police Accountability v. Browning
  581 F. Supp. 2d 1164· M.D. Fla.· 2008-08-22
  The court held that the Florida statute's 100-foot no-solicitation zone is not narrowly drawn as applied to plaintiffs' exit petitioning activities, and thus likely violates the First Amendment.
• Fla. Ass'n of Prof'l Lobbyists, Inc. v. Div. of Legis. Info. Servs. of the Fla. Off. of Legis. Servs.
  431 F. Supp. 2d 1228· N.D. Fla.· 2006-05-12
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, thus denying their motion for a preliminary injunction and summary judgment.