1,015 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,841 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
The court should order a new trial on all issues, not just damages, because liability and damages are too intertwined.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting absolute prosecutorial immunity without a functional analysis of the defendants' actions.
-
The court held that a trial court erred in dismissing a civil rights action based solely on conflicting affidavits, as disputed factual issues require further development of the record.
-
A single, incredible threat by a correctional officer and subsequent administrative reassignment do not state a claim of constitutional magnitude.
-
582 F.2d 1291·
4th Cir.·
1978-08-16
·cited 26×
The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in finding a § 1983 claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs and in creating a broad federal remedy under the Fifth Amendment.
-
The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's decision, find jurisdiction, and infer a cause of action against the city directly from the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that officials sued in their official capacities for injunctive relief are 'persons' under § 1983, and that the district court correctly applied the 'foreseeable consequences' test to find intentional segregation by city appellants.
-
-
Public defenders are accorded absolute immunity from § 1983 damage claims for acts done in the performance of their judicial function, specifically including plea bargaining.
-
A prosecutor may be held liable under § 1983 for making public statements that are beyond the scope of official duties and known or should have been known to violate a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial.
-
The court held that the government's knowing allowance of an informant to intrude upon attorney-client conferences, even if for cover and not to gain specific trial strategy, violates the Sixth Amendment right to counsel and the Fourteenth Amendment right to a fair trial, requiri
-
519 F.2d 1166·
5th Cir.·
1975-09-25
·cited 26×
The court held that the non-judicial foreclosure of a deed of trust, even when regulated by state statute, does not constitute state action for purposes of a Fourteenth Amendment due process claim.
-
The court held that the single judge erred in finding a violation of Section 1983 and ordering relief against the municipalities, as their refusal to enter cooperation agreements was lawful under the Housing Act and did not constitute unconstitutional discrimination.
-
487 F.2d 138·
2d Cir.·
1973-10-19
·cited 26×
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was barred by the statute of limitations, and therefore did not reach the issue of defendants' immunity.
-
462 F.2d 670·
2d Cir.·
1972-06-28
·cited 26×
The court held that amended prison mail regulations mooted the case, as they adequately protect inmates' First and Sixth Amendment rights.
-
The court held that in a § 1983 action for warrantless arrest, the plaintiff need only present a prima facie case of illegal arrest, and the burden shifts to the officers to prove probable cause as a defense.
-
The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by fingerprinting and photographing, and that the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants should be affirmed.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding no evidence that the plaintiff's termination or denial of transfer was based on race.
-
The court held that hospitals have private rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of the Medicaid Act's hospital reimbursement provisions.
-
The court held that the majority's interpretation of certain statements as evidence of conspiracy was an unwarranted inference, particularly given the lack of direct evidence and the context of the situation.
-
The court held that a prisoner's Eighth Amendment claim regarding unsanitary conditions and dangerous inmate interactions requires more than a showing of negligence, but the district court improperly granted summary judgment without addressing the core allegations. The court also
-
844 F.2d 562·
8th Cir.·
1988-04-14
·cited 25×
The court held that the drug-testing policy did not violate plaintiffs' First Amendment free exercise rights or Fourth Amendment rights, as the state's compelling interests in public safety and plant security outweighed the plaintiffs' privacy and religious objections.
-
The court held that the trial judge erred in allowing extensive introduction of allegations of prior police misconduct, necessitating a new trial on claims submitted to the jury. The court also affirmed the directed verdict for the municipality on the constitutional tort claim.
-
Evidence of a non-discriminatory retaliatory motive is irrelevant to proving that the employer's proffered legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination was a pretext for age discrimination.
-
The court held that the Wilson v. Garcia decision, which mandates application of state personal injury statutes of limitations to § 1983 claims, should be applied retroactively. The court also held that certain defendants were immune or acted as private parties, thus failing to s
-
The court held that the prosecutor was entitled to good faith immunity and that the county was not liable for the sheriff's actions as no county policy was established. However, the dismissal of the claim against the city was vacated and remanded.
-
704 F.2d 661·
2d Cir.·
1983-03-29
·cited 25×
A teacher has a constitutional right to privacy, encompassing bodily integrity, which includes the right to refuse examination by a doctor of the opposite sex.
-
The court held that the city and city attorney could be held liable under § 1983 for unconstitutional application of zoning ordinances and deprivation of power, but the councilmen were not liable due to insufficient evidence.
-
The court held that a sheriff may be liable under section 1983 for false imprisonment if they fail to exercise due diligence in verifying the identity of an individual arrested under a warrant, even if the warrant is fair on its face.
-
A mandatory maternity leave provision that forces a physically capable pregnant teacher to take leave without considering her individual ability to teach violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
439 F.2d 665·
5th Cir.·
1971-03-02
·cited 25×
The ten-day period for appealing a state municipal de-annexation decree is a procedural limitation, not a statute of limitations applicable to a federal civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
605 So. 2d 62·
Fla.·
1992-07-23
·cited 24×
Florida's insurance premium tax scheme (pre-July 1, 1988) imposed higher taxes on foreign insurers than domestic insurers. The trial court declared it unconstitutional under the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses, but the Florida Supreme Court reversed, holding that the tax
-
The Rombergs are prevailing parties entitled to a fee award under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because they succeeded on a significant issue that altered the legal relationship with the defendants.
-
The court held that a notice of appeal using "et al." is insufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction for unnamed parties and that mistaken reliance on "et al." does not constitute excusable neglect for extending the appeal deadline. The court also affirmed that sex discriminati
-
The court held that while a six-year delay in hearing an appeal violated due process rights, the subsequent affirmance of the conviction rendered release from custody inappropriate, and damages were the proper remedy for any remaining prejudice.
-
893 F.2d 172·
8th Cir.·
1990-01-04
·cited 24×
The court held that the defendants were entitled to immunity, either absolute or qualified, for their actions related to the temporary removal of the child, and thus summary judgment was appropriate.
-
A public school teacher's use of a non-approved supplemental reading list, without seeking administrative approval, does not constitute constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern.
-
The court held that plaintiff's Section 1981 and RICO claims were properly dismissed, but his Section 1985(3) claim and potentially his Section 1983 Equal Protection claim were not, and the state action issue for the Section 1983 claim requires further factual development.
-
The court held that a prisoner stated a claim for deprivation of property without due process when funds were taken from his account pursuant to established policy, and that the district court erred in denying his motion to supplement his complaint.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of town officers' statements due to lack of proven conspiracy, but erred in directing a verdict on the civil rights conspiracy claim, though this error was harmless.
-
844 F.2d 1261·
6th Cir.·
1988-04-25
·cited 24×
Private parties acting under color of state law are not entitled to good faith immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but may assert a good faith defense.
-
The jury instruction imposing a substantive due process standard for an excessive force claim was error requiring remand for a new trial, as the claim properly invoked Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable seizures.
-
The court held that the prior administrative proceeding did not preclude the plaintiffs from seeking compensatory damages in federal court, but affirmed absolute legislative immunity for the mayor and commissioners, and remanded for consideration of attorneys' fees.
-
The court held that a jury's finding of discriminatory custom under § 1983 collaterally estops the district court from making inconsistent findings on a simultaneously tried Title VII claim. The court also reversed the setting aside of punitive damages.
-
The court held that the seizure of property without notice under Alabama's attachment statute, which was an established state procedure, did not fall under the Parratt v. Taylor exception, and that private defendants could assert qualified immunity but failed to prove they acted
-
783 F.2d 1220·
5th Cir.·
1986-03-03
·cited 24×
The court held that the employees did not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their jobs under Texas law and failed to present sufficient evidence to support their First Amendment claim, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
-
The court held that punitive damages under section 1983 require a showing of willful misconduct or conscious indifference to the rights of others, not merely gross negligence.
-
The court concurred that the record did not entirely exclude the possibility of bad faith termination, which could entitle the plaintiff to relief under section 1983.
-
A complaint that states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) cannot be dismissed as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) simply because the plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis.