Odebrecht Construction, Inc. v. Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that monetary damages were irreparable because they could not be recovered against a state agency due to the agency's Eleventh Amendment immunity
• explaining that the Florida law was preempted in part because it imposed penalties that exceeded the federal sanctions
• finding that a state law “squarely conflicts with the more nuanced federal regime” because “in stark contrast to the federal regime, [the state law] penalizes any [conduct] — no ifs, ands, or buts.”
• finding the state’s “purported distinction’’ between punishing a false statement rather than the \conduct itself” to be \unpersuasive.”
• finding harm to the state was “more ephemeral” where it sought enforcement of a statute that was “very likely” unconstitutional
• finding irreparable harm because “[plaintiff] Odebrecht has 3 no monetary recourse against a state agency like [defendant] FDOT because of the Eleventh 4 Amendment.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).