Pottinger v. City of Miami
Significance, City's Treatment Of Homeless Violated Their Constitutional Rights, Negotiations Lead To Settlement Agreement
Michael Pottinger, Peter Carter, Berry Young
City of Miami
That the city of Miami had a policy of harassing homeless people and routinely seized and destroyed their property in violation of their constitutional rights.
Chief Lawyer for Plaintiffs
Benjamin S. Waxman
Chief Defense Lawyer
Quinn Jones III
Justices for the Court
Joseph W. Hatchett (writing for the court), R. Lanier Anderson, Peter T. Fay
Date of Decision
2 February 1996
That a settlement agreement between the homeless of Miami and the City of Miami would provide for police training, law enforcement contracts with the homeless, record keeping, an advisory committee, and $600,000 compensation for the homeless.
- Newell v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America, 904 F. 2d 644 (1990).
- Alabama-Tombigbee Rivers Coalition v. Dept. of Interior, 26 F. 3d 1103 (1994).
Stoner, Madeleine R. The Civil Rights of Homeless People: Law, Social Policy, and Social Work Practice. New York: Aldine de Gruyler, 1995.
- ACLU of Florida. http://www.aclufl.org.
- Ellickson, Robert C. "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces." Yale Law Journal, March 1996, p. 1165.
- Presidential Election Trials: 2000 - Manual Recounts Requested, Manual Recounts Begin, Florida Supreme Court Rules, An Hour And A Half In Washington - November 9 Thursday
- Piscataway Township Board of Education v. Taxman - Significance, Taxman Fights Dismissal On Racial Grounds, Court Of Appeals Ruling, Dissent And Aftermath
- Pottinger v. City of Miami - Significance
- Pottinger v. City of Miami - City's Treatment Of Homeless Violated Their Constitutional Rights
- Pottinger v. City of Miami - Negotiations Lead To Settlement Agreement
- Pottinger v. City of Miami - Impact
- Pottinger v. City of Miami - Homeless Rights
- Other Free Encyclopedias