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
-
722 F.2d 630·
11th Cir.·
1983-12-14
·cited 6×
The court held that the Georgia Parole Board's unfettered discretion in clemency proceedings means no constitutional right to procedural due process or Eighth Amendment protection against arbitrary application of the death penalty at this stage.
-
719 F.2d 1310·
5th Cir.·
1983-11-21
·cited 6×
The court held that the prisoner's constitutional rights were not violated by the disciplinary punishment or the conditions of his administrative and punitive lockdown.
-
718 F.2d 262·
8th Cir.·
1983-09-29
·cited 6×
A hospital director's position, based on an oral contract terminable at will, does not create a protectible property interest for due process purposes. Termination of such a directorship does not constitute a reduction or termination of staff privileges unless the privileges them
-
The disciplinary action by a private hospital against a physician does not constitute state action, even with public funding and regulation, absent a sufficiently close nexus between the state and the specific challenged action.
-
710 F.2d 184·
4th Cir.·
1983-06-24
·cited 6×
The court held that while Hinton was properly joined as a defendant, the procedure used violated his due process rights, requiring a new trial.
-
The court held that a prevailing defendant in a frivolous § 1983 action can recover attorney fees under § 1988, even if the fees are sought by the indemnifying municipality.
-
The court held that a significant delay in state post-conviction proceedings may justify waiving the exhaustion requirement for federal habeas corpus relief and that a § 1983 claim based on such delay becomes ripe when the state proceedings are resolved or a specific timeframe ex
-
696 F.2d 784·
10th Cir.·
1983-01-05
·cited 6×
The court held that an arrest warrant based on computer data showing current vehicle ownership, without confirming ownership at the time of the parking violations, violates the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement.
-
The concurring judge concurs based on the assumption of probable cause for the arrests, which would preclude a constitutional tort claim.
-
A prevailing plaintiff in a civil rights action may be awarded attorneys' fees for time spent on unsuccessful but related claims, even if those claims went to trial.
-
The court held that the trial court's finding of no deliberate indifference by the named defendants was not clearly erroneous, but vacated the dismissal of claims against two other defendants based on a change in the applicable statute of limitations.
-
The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights action, holding it was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
-
The court held that the district court should address the prosecutor's immunity defense in the first instance, and that the case should be remanded for further proceedings.
-
657 F.2d 621·
4th Cir.·
1981-08-26
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court's procedural errors in granting summary judgment did not prejudice the plaintiff, and his claims lacked merit.
-
Witnesses are absolutely immune from civil rights actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for testimony given in judicial proceedings.
-
The court held that the admission of evidence of the plaintiff's prior juvenile adjudication and a sixteen-year-old criminal conviction was prejudicial error.
-
The court held that a § 1983 claim cannot be based on attorneys' conduct in civil litigation unless malice is alleged and proven, as parties are generally free to resort to the courts.
-
The court held that while the state statutes themselves were constitutional, the application of those statutes to deprive Fayle of property without notice and a hearing violated his due process rights. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claim against one defendant due t
-
The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's relationship with a witness, prior inconsistent statements, intoxication, and awareness of unlawful conduct was proper and did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial.
-
596 F.2d 678·
5th Cir.·
1979-06-08
·cited 6×
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for a mandatory preliminary injunction to fund his state coram nobis proceeding.
-
The court held that claims directly seeking release or reconsideration of parole must be brought as a habeas corpus petition, but other claims for injunctive and declaratory relief regarding due process standards are not exclusively habeas corpus.
-
579 F.2d 940·
5th Cir.·
1978-09-08
·cited 6×
The court held that the procedure used to dismiss the inmate's § 1983 action, which relied on ex parte administrative reports without allowing responsive pleadings, was improper.
-
The court held that the employer's inconsistent actions regarding the plaintiff's appearance were arbitrary and thus a deprivation of liberty.
-
The court held that appellants' civil rights claims were barred by prosecutorial immunity, abstention doctrines, and failure to allege class-based animus.
-
The New York State Parole Board must provide a statement of reasons when determining a minimum period of imprisonment (MPI) that exceeds the statutory minimum, and under specific circumstances, a prisoner must be granted access to the evidence in his file.
-
554 F.2d 369·
9th Cir.·
1977-05-19
·cited 6×
Federal courts should not intervene in pending state proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances, such as bad faith or flagrant constitutional violations.
-
554 F.2d 645·
4th Cir.·
1977-05-16
·cited 6×
The court held that a plaintiff alleging racial discrimination in law enforcement must provide more than statistical evidence of disproportionate arrests; they must show a deliberate, race-based selective enforcement policy or plan.
-
The court held that the analogy to common law conversion was inappropriate for determining the accrual of a § 1983 claim regarding seized evidence.
-
549 F.2d 929·
4th Cir.·
1976-12-29
·cited 6×
The court held that the college's dismissal of professors for protesting employment policies violated their First Amendment rights and denied them equal protection.
-
541 F.2d 460·
4th Cir.·
1976-09-22
·cited 6×
The court held that the plaintiff, having been released from state custody and his individual claims for equitable relief severed, lacked standing to represent the class, rendering the class action moot.
-
522 F.2d 928·
2d Cir.·
1975-07-31
·cited 6×
The court held that the lower court erred in determining that Title XIX requires Medicaid payments for elective abortions, but the majority's interpretation that Title XIX permits such payments is also flawed.
-
The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged purposeful discrimination to establish a substantial federal question, thus reversing the dismissal.
-
518 F.2d 396·
2d Cir.·
1975-06-20
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the action because federal courts should not interfere with state court proceedings absent substantial irreparable injury, and the state's refusal to appoint out-of-state counsel was a rational exercise of discretion not v
-
501 F.2d 939·
5th Cir.·
1974-10-04
·cited 6×
The court held that the district court's dismissal must be vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions on prisoner mail processing.
-
A municipal corporation is not a 'person' amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, regardless of whether it performs governmental or proprietary functions.
-
The court held that the prisoner's transfer to state prison rendered his claims against county jail officials moot.
-
475 F.2d 751·
5th Cir.·
1973-03-20
·cited 6×
The court held that while the district court erred in its jurisdictional basis, the dismissal was nonetheless proper because a writ of mandamus would not lie to compel a discretionary duty.
-
-
The court held that while the district court had jurisdiction, it properly declined to exercise it by abstaining, allowing state courts to interpret the ordinance.
-
The court held that the complaint's allegations, even taken as true, do not demonstrate a deprivation of constitutional rights necessary to sustain a civil rights action.
-
454 F.2d 839·
3d Cir.·
1972-01-24
·cited 6×
The court held that the single district judge did not err in dismissing Count One because the matter had already been adjudicated by a three-judge court, and the relief sought was injunctive in nature, not purely declaratory.
-
415 F.2d 771·
9th Cir.·
1969-08-13
·cited 6×
-
The court held that the complaint, seeking to invalidate a state conviction and restrain incarceration, should have been treated as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, not a civil rights action.
-
The court held that a plaintiff who concedes the correctness of an administrative determination of adjudicative facts cannot claim a denial of due process for lack of an evidentiary hearing. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's exclusion from gaming establishments, b
-
The court held that the district court's dismissal order was improper because it failed to state the grounds for dismissal, preventing the plaintiff from making an informed decision about amending the complaint.
-
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis violated the First Amendment by suspending elected state attorney Andrew Warren in retaliation for Warren's political advocacy, including his signing statements supporting abortion rights and transgender care rights, and for his status as a reform pr
-
Central Florida Investments and affiliated entities appealed the dismissal of their lawsuit against Orange County for failure to exhaust administrative remedies before challenging the County's denial of their amendment request to operate motorized boats and jet skis on Big Sand L
-
The court adopted the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, granting most motions to dismiss except for the fifth count against Halifax Medical Center Foundation, Inc., and granting plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.
-
The court held that a Section 1983 claim against the City for deliberate indifference, a false arrest/imprisonment claim against the City, and a false arrest/imprisonment claim against the officer could proceed, but a negligence claim against the City was dismissed.
-
The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of disparate impact due to the City's history of discrimination, even though statistical evidence alone was insufficient. The court also found that the City failed to meet its burden of proving the challenged practi