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
-
771 F.2d 1004·
7th Cir.·
1985-08-22
·cited 61×
The court held that the plaintiff's actions did not constitute a deprivation of property or liberty without due process, nor did they involve protected speech under the First Amendment, thus affirming summary judgment.
-
The court held that the prior appellate decision established the law of the case, meaning the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, and that the trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
-
The court held that the speech of a public employee was protected under the Pickering balancing test, not the compelling state interest test.
-
The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff's discovery continuance motion and no genuine issue of material fact regarding the officer's qualified immunity or the city's policy for § 1983 claims.
-
Verbal harassment and denial of mailing a letter not concerning legal matters do not state a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and such claims are subject to dismissal as frivolous.
-
545 F.2d 286·
2d Cir.·
1976-11-01
·cited 61×
The dissenting judge would not grant specific performance of an unauthorized and unfulfillable prosecutorial promise that intruded upon independent agencies' discretion.
-
The court held that the majority's interpretation of Preiser v. Rodriguez regarding exhaustion of state remedies was too strict, and that the inmates' claims regarding the duration of their confinement necessitated exhaustion.
-
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that under Alabama law, sheriffs are not final policymakers for their counties in the area of law enforcement. The court also held that hearsay evidence, which is not shown to be reducible to admissible form at
-
A state prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for maliciously presenting evidence to a grand jury, even if calculated to clear a suspect.
-
The court held that the constitutional right to refuse a haircut on religious grounds was not clearly established at the time of the incident, entitling prison officials to qualified immunity from damages.
-
The judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding that the appellants received minimal due process and that Donnelly was precluded from proceeding due to prior state court dismissals.
-
663 F.2d 1316·
5th Cir.·
1981-12-14
·cited 60×
The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish claims for deprivation of property regarding the autocar and forklift, that the Eleventh Amendment barred suit against the state agency, that dismissal of a supervisory defendant was proper, and that collateral estoppel barred
-
2 So. 3d 194·
Fla.·
2009-01-29
·cited 59×
Peter Ventura, a death-row inmate convicted of first-degree murder in 1988, challenged the constitutionality of Florida's lethal injection protocol in a successive postconviction motion. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the summary denial of his motion, holding that his claims
-
765 F.2d 1·
1st Cir.·
1985-06-19
·cited 59×
A police officer is entitled to qualified immunity if the facts and circumstances known to him at the time of a warrantless arrest would warrant a person of reasonable caution to believe that the suspect had committed a crime, even if a later probable cause hearing finds no proba
-
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint because the allegations, if proven, could establish a "special relationship" between the child protective services agency and the deceased child, giving rise to an affirmative duty to protect. The court foun
-
The court held that the trial judge erred in submitting the due process liberty interest claim to the jury because there was no evidence to support it.
-
617 F.2d 961·
3d Cir.·
1980-02-27
·cited 58×
The admission of a letter, written six months after the alleged incident, as evidence of a conspiracy to fabricate brutality charges was reversible error because its context and admissibility were not properly established.
-
611 F.2d 1302·
9th Cir.·
1980-01-21
·cited 58×
The court held that attorneys' fees awarded under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment, nor are they precluded by the fact that the prevailing party's counsel is a state-funded legal aid organization. The court also found that challenges to the amount of the
-
-
A federal court cannot abstain from hearing a civil rights case solely because a state remedy is available; the federal remedy under Section 1983 is supplementary and does not require exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies.
-
The dissent argues that the exhaustion requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2254 does not apply to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions seeking monetary damages, even if the claim relates to the validity of good-time credit deprivation.
-
A pretrial detainee's claim of injury due to negligent supervision by jail officials does not state a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if adequate post-deprivation state tort remedies are available.
-
A municipality is liable under § 1983 for deprivations of constitutional rights only if inflicted pursuant to official policy, which includes adopted policy statements or widespread, persistent practices known to policymakers.
-
The court held that while the officers' use of deadly force was excessive as a matter of law, their good faith defense presented a jury question, precluding judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, the jury instructions failed to properly address the good faith defense rega
-
509 F.2d 1332·
5th Cir.·
1975-03-19
·cited 57×
The court held that while some prison conditions did not violate the Eighth Amendment or prior injunctions, others, particularly concerning punitive isolation and mail processing, required further consideration or reversal.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's claim for prejudicial publicity was barred by issue preclusion from prior proceedings, and his assault claim was time-barred due to the statute of limitations not relating back to the original pleading.
-
Antonio May died in Fulton County Jail on September 11, 2018, following an altercation with officers during which he was restrained and subjected to physical force while experiencing acute methamphetamine intoxication and psychological distress. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
-
972 F.2d 1230·
11th Cir.·
1992-09-18
·cited 56×
The district court did not err in denying the county officials' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity without prejudice, as a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether the employee's statements impaired his ability to carry out his duties and the d
-
The district court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the second amendment to the complaint would be futile, and therefore, further proceedings would be a waste of resources.
-
724 F.2d 881·
11th Cir.·
1984-01-19
·cited 56×
An order resolving all issues except attorney's fees is a final, appealable order, even if the fees have not yet been awarded.
-
-
The court held that a prisoner's due process rights were violated by the denial of witnesses without sufficient justification and by the failure to provide adequate reasons for disciplinary action.
-
922 F.2d 712·
11th Cir.·
1991-01-28
·cited 55×
The court held that it has jurisdiction to review the denial of qualified immunity even when factual disputes exist, and that the superintendent's failure to act on known medical deficiencies could constitute deliberate indifference, but the attending physician's actions did not
-
Prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, but claims accrue when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury and the perpetrator.
-
776 F.2d 226·
8th Cir.·
1985-10-30
·cited 55×
The court held that an inmate's release from close management and settlement of damages did not moot his claim because it was capable of repetition yet evading review, and that state policies created a liberty interest protected by due process.
-
The dissenting judge believes the district court properly granted judgment n.o.v. and would remand for a new trial on damages if liability is assumed.
-
A prisoner's conclusory allegations of arbitrary parole denial are insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 without specific factual averments. Parole officials are also immune from damages.
-
-
A prisoner's civil rights complaint alleging that prison officials confiscated legal papers necessary for his appeal, thereby frustrating his access to the courts, states a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the law was not clearly established that he violated the Fourth Amendment by using deadly force without a warning in these specific circumstances.
-
The court held that prior precedent improperly granted Eleventh Amendment immunity to Alabama county sheriffs without a proper analysis of state funding for judgments.
-
The court held that the City failed to preserve most of its challenges to jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence due to procedural defaults, and that any errors in the qualified immunity instruction were harmless.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the liability of Chief Forni and the Town of Saugus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, precluding summary judgment.
-
The court held that attorneys' fees could not be awarded for claims brought solely under the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) or its state counterpart, as these statutes lack fee-shifting provisions and are not covered by other fee-entitling statutes like Sectio
-
The court held that an order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights action is appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and that the district court erred by believing it lacked discretion to appoint counsel.
-
590 F.2d 105·
5th Cir.·
1979-02-21
·cited 54×
The court held that the jury instructions adequately covered the qualified immunity defense, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of cruel and unusual punishment and the awarded damages.
-
-
The court held that while punitive damages may be appropriate, appellate courts cannot mandate their award, as this is a discretionary decision for the fact finder. The majority's imposition of punitive damages constituted an abuse of discretion.
-
A county cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a district attorney's prosecutorial decisions, as the district attorney acts as a state official, not a county policymaker, under Georgia law.
-
Federal courts do not have inherent jurisdiction to enforce settlement agreements of dismissed cases; an independent basis for federal jurisdiction is required.