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
-
631 F.2d 1154·
4th Cir.·
1980-10-17
·cited 20×
The court held that neither a court-appointed physician nor an attorney acting in such capacity can be considered state actors for purposes of a § 1983 claim.
-
628 F.2d 1104·
8th Cir.·
1980-08-26
·cited 20×
The dissenting judge argues that a public defender, representing an indigent defendant, does not operate under color of state law for the purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. The judge also believes public defenders should have absolute immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff inmate's claims of constitutional violations, including denial of access to courts, denial of medical care, and racial discrimination, were insufficient to state a claim or were contradicted by evidence, justifying summary judgment.
-
A party is not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 unless they are a prevailing party who has essentially succeeded on a claim.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the Section 1983 claim regarding state action, but affirmed dismissal of the Section 1985(3) claim for lack of class-based discrimination.
-
The court held that collateral estoppel does not bar a § 1983 action for search and seizure claims when federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable, and that the district court should not have granted summary judgment without considering all claims.
-
582 F.2d 1316·
4th Cir.·
1978-09-05
·cited 20×
The court held that the panel erred in applying a two-year statute of limitations to § 1983 actions without regard to state survivability rules.
-
-
The court held that a prisoner's complaint alleging inadequate medical care, including failure to diagnose and treat a back injury and other conditions, stated a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying declaratory relief, as the case presented an actual controversy ripe for determination with a useful purpose.
-
The court held that the temporary solitary confinement and forfeiture of good time and parole eligibility for escapees, as mandated by Colorado statutes, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment or a denial of due process for which damages are recoverable under § 1983.
-
The court held that the trial court's findings that teachers' non-renewal was due to teaching deficiencies and insubordination, rather than constitutionally protected activity, were supported by substantial evidence and not clearly erroneous.
-
A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts committed in the performance of duties integral to the judicial process, even if malicious or knowing.
-
The court held that the United States is liable under the FTCA for its own negligence in placing a prisoner in an inadequate facility, but not for the negligence of the county jailer or sheriff.
-
The dissenting judge would apply Iowa's five-year general statute of limitations to the civil rights action.
-
The court held that a state tax break for federally funded housing, without more, does not constitute state action sufficient for a federal civil rights claim. It also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint.
-
The court held that while the Adult Authority is immune from damages claims, a prisoner's claim of constitutional rights interference by unidentified state officials warrants further proceedings and opportunity to amend.
-
The court held that the pro se complaint, alleging cruel and unusual punishment for 50.5 hours without food, stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the dismissal was premature.
-
408 F.2d 1022·
5th Cir.·
1969-03-18
·cited 20×
A city police officer's tenure rights, derived solely from state law, cannot be vindicated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Claims based on injuries occurring before May 20, 2009, are time-barred under Florida's four-year statute of limitations for § 1983 actions, and the continuing tort doctrine does not apply because the complaint alleges discrete acts rather than a single continuing wrong. Substant
-
949 F.2d 890·
6th Cir.·
1991-11-22
·cited 19×
Procedural due process claims in zoning matters are not always subject to finality requirements for ripeness.
-
A municipality can be held liable under RICO for the predicate acts of its officers or agents, and the court has jurisdiction over the appeal via Rule 54(b) certification.
-
The court held that a police officer's stop and arrest of an individual for making obscene gestures and yelling profanities, which constituted protected speech, was unlawful and violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus denying qualified immunity. The court also fo
-
The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment, as probable cause existed for the arrest and no duty to investigate further was constitutionally required.
-
842 F.2d 903·
6th Cir.·
1988-03-25
·cited 19×
The court held that the statute of limitations for a section 1983 claim accrues when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury, and that continuing incarceration is an effect, not a continuing tort.
-
824 F.2d 139·
1st Cir.·
1987-07-24
·cited 19×
The court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity for the translator's First Amendment claim, but the issue of qualified immunity for the due process claims of four trust employees should be reconsidered by the district court, and affirmed the denial of qualified
-
712 F.2d 70·
4th Cir.·
1983-07-06
·cited 19×
The court affirmed the dismissal of the Holsey action as frivolous but remanded the Todd action for the district court to determine if changed circumstances (release from custody) would permit a § 1983 action without state exhaustion.
-
The court held that a prisoner's claim of religious objection to a hair length regulation cannot be summarily dismissed and requires a balancing of the prisoner's First Amendment rights against the state's asserted security interests.
-
665 F.2d 661·
5th Cir.·
1982-01-11
·cited 19×
Police officers testifying within the scope of their duties should have good-faith, qualified immunity from § 1983 liability, not absolute immunity.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights action was barred by judicial and prosecutorial immunity and the statute of limitations.
-
A governmental entity is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based solely on respondeat superior; liability requires proof of an official policy or custom that caused the constitutional violation.
-
50 F.4th 54·
11th Cir.·
2022-09-29
·cited 18×
The court held that a civilly detained individual, such as an immigration detainee, is not a "prisoner" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), and therefore the PLRA's early screening and fee provisions do not apply to their actions.
-
A pro se motion for a new trial, even if stricken as unauthorized, tolls the time for filing a notice of appeal if filed within the time allowed by rule. However, the court affirmed the judgment as none of the appellant's claims had merit.
-
Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
-
Four members of the Brevard County Sheriff's Department sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Sheriff C.W. Miller and supervisory defendants violated their First Amendment rights by taking adverse employment action in retaliation for their political support of Miller's oppon
-
The court held that claims for injunctive relief were moot due to inmate transfer, and claims for damages were barred by qualified immunity or lacked merit. Summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed.
-
The court held that the wardens are entitled to qualified immunity regarding the Fourth and First Amendment claims, but not the Fourteenth Amendment claim concerning the inmates' liberty interest in visitation.
-
The court held that the district court correctly analyzed Section 1983 liability, qualified immunity, and the liability of specific agents, affirming the liability phase and modifying the attorney fees award.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of deliberate indifference and causation was supported by sufficient evidence, allowing the case to proceed.
-
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting limited evidence of the plaintiff's pending charges and prior convictions to show the defendants' state of mind and the reasonableness of their actions.
-
891 F.2d 591·
6th Cir.·
1989-12-12
·cited 18×
The court held that plaintiffs' complaint did not sufficiently allege that state officials were sued in their individual capacities for damages, thus failing to establish federal jurisdiction under the Eleventh Amendment.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm from the union's inadequate notices regarding agency fees, and thus were not entitled to restitution or punitive damages. Class certification was also denied due to a conflict of interest.
-
The court held that the determination of whether an individual acted as a government agent for Section 1983 purposes, when credibility is not at issue, is a question of law for the court, not the jury.
-
The First Amendment does not protect a 'ghost employee' from being fired for political reasons, especially when reinstatement would violate state criminal law and mock the amendment's purpose.
-
A district court may dismiss a pro se in forma pauperis complaint as frivolous only if it lacks any "arguable substance in law or fact," and cannot dismiss based on credibility determinations of the allegations.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment because she did not complete her probationary period under Illinois law, and thus, her procedural due process claim failed.
-
The court held that the prison lockdown was a legitimate security measure, not a disciplinary action, and therefore did not violate state-created liberty interests or the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
-
Unfavorable action against a public employee based on political affiliation, even if not a discharge, can give rise to a constitutional claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity from damages claims because the law regarding independent assessment of confidential informant reliability was not clearly established at the time of the disciplinary hearings. However, injunctive relief is appropriate where dis
-
838 F.2d 380·
9th Cir.·
1988-02-02
·cited 18×
The Washington statute restricting exit polls violates the First Amendment by encroaching on traditional public forums and limiting the media's access to information crucial for public debate.