How cited: Benon John Trawinski, Irene Monahan Trawinski v. United Technologies, Carrier Corporation · Go Syfert

Benon John Trawinski, Irene Monahan Trawinski v. United Technologies, Carrier Corporation (2002)

green · 83 citation events across 14 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
All Green 50
Treatment trajectory · 2003 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200320142026
Sort: By significance · Most recent
green SEC v. Microtune, Incorporated (2012)
Rule Authority · 5th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Cir. 1994); see also Trawinski v. United Techs., 6 Case: 11-10594 Document: 00511948912 Page: 7 Date Filed: 08/07/2012 No. 11-10594 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002); Fed.
green Cantrell Hill v. Bernard Hill (2025)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
per curiam
green Christopher Eugean Brown v. Sergeant Ashley Kern (2023)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Kristin Sconiers v. FNU Lockhart (2020)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) 8 Case: 16-16954 Date Filed: 01/07/2020 Page: 9 of 32 (per curiam).
green Kenneth A. Frank v. David Schulson (2019)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Finally, although pro se complaints must be liberally construed, Trawinski v. United Tech., 3 Case: 18-14779 Date Filed: 08/05/2019 Page: 4 of 7 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002), such complaints still must comply with the procedural rules governing the proper form of pleadings, McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993).
green Rosana Boulhosa Nassar v. Florida Department of Agriculture (2018)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Second, “a claim under § 1985(3) requires the proof of invidious discriminatory intent as well as the violation of a serious constitutional right.” 8 Case: 18-10470 Date Filed: 11/09/2018 Page: 9 of 10 Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Joseph Dingler v. State of Georgia (2018)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Riggs v. Curran (2017)
Rule Authority · 1st Cir.
Other cases cited by Plaintiffs that fall into this category include: Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 451 F.3d 77 , 88 n.14 (2d Cir. 2006) (applying § 2462 to a private enforcement action under the Clean Water Act); Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying § 2462 to a private enforcement action under the Energy and Policy Conservation Act); Sierra Club v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 834 F.2d 1517, 1522 (9th…
applying § 2462 to a private enforcement action under the Energy and Policy Conservation Act
green George Lowe v. Florida Department of Corrections (2017)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
We have also held that “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted).
per curiam
green Stephen G. Burke v. Timothy Bowns (2016)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Mary E. Stansel v. City of Atlanta (2014)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
See Robertson v. Hecksel, 420 F.3d 1254, 1261 (11th Cir.2005) (“[Bjefore § 1983 and § 1988 can come into play, the plaintiff must still establish the existence of a federal right.”); Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002) (“[A] claim under § 1985(3) requires the proof of *870 ... the violation of a serious constitutional right....”); Park v. City of Atlanta, 120 F.3d 1157, 1159-60 (11th Cir.1997) (“Section 1986 claims are ... derivative of § 1985 vio…
green Alma Barnes v. Compass Bank (2014)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
The statute of limitations begins with the violation itself—it is upon violation, and not upon discovery of harm, that the claim is complete and the clock is ticking.” Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.2002).
green Trevis Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega (2014)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green Torrence Windell Allen v. Tennille Gooden (2013)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green James A. Birdette v. Saxon Mortgage (2012)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green Stephen Cox v. Hon. Frank Mills, III (2012)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002).
green Jussi K. Kivisto vs Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone, PLC (2011)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
“The purpose of § 1985 was to stifle the serious class-based deprivation of constitutional rights by private parties, not to serve as a general federal tort law.” Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002).
green Harold B. Rotte v. Internal Revenue Service (2010)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
“Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” See Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002) (quotation omitted).
green Zinnia I. Chen v. Hon. Kenneth R. Lester, Jr. (2010)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Plaintiffs’ Claims Under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985-1986 “The elements of a cause of action under § 1985(3) are: (1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of th…
green Cook v. Randolph County, Ga. (2009)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002) (quotation marks omitted).
green Lennon Anderson v. Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc. (2008)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Bd. of Broward County, 483 F.3d 725, 728 (11th Cir.2007). “[P]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green James E. Reed v. U.S. Postal Service (2008)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green Joao Godoy v. Habersham County (2006)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002).
green Jackson v. Secretary for Department of Corrections (2006)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
We have held that “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002) (citation omitted).
green Craig Galloway v. GA Technology Authority (2006)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Although “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and” are “liberally construed,” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002), pro se litigants still must comply with the procedural rules governing the proper form of pleadings.
green Robert J. Heard v. Milton E. Buddy Nix, Jr. (2006)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
Although pro se complaints must be liberally construed, Trawinski v. United Tech, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002), such complaints still must comply with the procedural rules governing the proper form of pleadings, McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 , 113 S.Ct. 1980, 1984 , 124 L.Ed.2d 21 (1993).
green Steven Earl Beaver v. Charles B. Welch (2006)
Rule Authority · 11th Cir.
This court has held that “[p]ro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002).
green Level Francois v. City of North Miami Beach Police Dept., City of North Miami Beach, Jose Andrade, Hertz Glob… (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla. · 4 citations in this opinion
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3)).
green Carol Ann Salmon v. Yorktown Systems Group LLC (2026)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ala. · 2 citations in this opinion
The plausibility standard does not equate to a “probability requirement,” yet it requires more than a “mere possibility of misconduct” or factual statements that are “merely consistent with a defendant’s liability.” Id. (citations omitted). 2 While the court should extend pro se complaints some measure of leniency, see Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002), “nothing in that leniency would excuse a plaintiff from compliance with threshold requ…
green Securities & Exchange Commission v. Alexander (2007)
Rule Authority · 2 citations in this opinion
Nov.29, 2005) (concluding that it was bound by Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.2002)): United States v. Maillard, 26 F. Cas. 1140, 1143 (S.D.N.Y.1871); In re Landsberg, 14 F. Cas. 1065 (E.D.Mich.1870); see also Trawinski, 313 F.3d at 1298 .
green Kendall Palmer v. New Rez doing business as Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, et al. (2026)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ga.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Jomo K. Wyatt v. Dublin VAMC and Department of Veterans Affairs (2026)
Rule Authority · M.D. Ga.
Corp., 550 U.S. at 556 . 10 Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam). 11 Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920 , 924 n. 5 (11th Cir. 2003). 12 McElmurray v. Consolidated Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 13 Smith v. United States, 7 F.4th 963, 973 (11h Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). 4 under certain circumstances.14 “Further, as to tort claims relat…
per curiam
green Tavern Downing, Sr., et al. v. Anita Howard, et al. (2025)
Rule Authority · M.D. Ga.
“The purpose of § 1985 was to stifle the serious class-based deprivation of constitutional rights by private parties, not to serve as a general federal tort law.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Thomas Woodrow Haynes v. Schwarze Industries, et al. (2025)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ala.
While the court should extend pro se complaints some measure of leniency, see Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002), “nothing in that leniency would excuse a plaintiff from compliance with threshold requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Johnson v. Mobile County Sheriff Dept., No. 06-0821- WS-B, 2007 WL 2023488 , at *3 (S.D.
green Coke v. City of Birmingham, Alabama (2025)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ala.
Caldwell v. Warden, 748 F.3d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002)).
green Redding v. Lee (2025)
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.
The purpose of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 “was to stifle the serious class-based deprivation of constitutional rights by private parties, not to serve as a general federal tort law.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002); see Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 , 267–68, 274 (1993).
green Jimenez v. U.S. Department of Treasury (2025)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Smith v. Gwinnett County Board of Commissioners (2024)
Rule Authority · N.D. Ga.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Sullenberger v. City of Coral Gables (2024)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
And “[t]he elements of a cause of action under § 1985(3) are: (1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any 19 This second portion of § 1985(2) states: [I]f two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or to injure him or his property for lawfully en…
emphasis added
green Dulcio v. Environmental Protection Agency (2023)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Melvin v. Troy University (2022)
Rule Authority · M.D. Ala.
Ala. 2007) (Thompson, J.); Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002).
green Henderson v. Lett (2022)
Rule Authority · S.D. Ala.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002). [The Court must] also credit the “specific facts” pled in [Henderson’s] sworn complaint when considering his opposition to summary judgment.
green Ray v. Pate's Chapel Baptist Church and Cemetery (MAG+) (2021)
Rule Authority · M.D. Ala.
“The elements of a cause of action under § 1985(3) are: (1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person 14 or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” Trawinski v. United Techs.,…
quoting Childree v. UAP/GA AG CHEM, Inc., 92 F.3d 1140 , 1146–47 (11th Cir. 1996)
green Taite v. Monroe County Public Library (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D. Ala.
Ed. 2d 594 (1989) (applying to § 1983); Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002) (applying to § 1985).
applying to § 1985
green Santoro v. Agerton (2020)
Rule Authority · S.D. Ala.
The elements necessary to prove a § 1985(3) claim are “(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.” Trawinski v. United Techs., 313…
noting that “a claim under § 1985(3) requires the proof of invidious discriminatory intent”
green Securities & Exchange Commission v. Huff (2010)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
The Eleventh Circuit has noted that Section 2462, by its terms, “is generally applicable to ‘proceeding[s] for the enforcement *1338 of any civil fine[, penalty, or forfeiture].’ ” Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.2002).
green Securities & Exchange Commission v. Huff (2010)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
The Eleventh Circuit has noted that Section 2462, by its terms, “is generally applicable to ‘proceeding^] for the enforcement of any civil fine[, penalty, or forfeiture].’ ” Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1298 (11th Cir.2002).
green Delvecchio v. Smith (2008)
Rule Authority · S.D. Fla.
In addition, “pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.” Trawinski v. United Tech., 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir.2002) (quoting Tannenbaum v. United States, 148 F.3d 1262, 1263 (11th Cir.1998)).
green White v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County (2007)
Rule Authority · M.D. Fla.
Trawinski v. United Techs., 313 F.3d 1295, 1299 (11th Cir.2002).
green Moore v. Nelson (2005)
Rule Authority · M.D. Ga.
See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir.1993). 2. § 1985(3) Claim The elements of a cause of action under § 1985(3) are: “(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of…