943 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 1,362 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort
-
National Guard members who qualified for transfer to the Standby Reserve before July 10, 1974, and applied before that date, are entitled to transfer, even if the Governor later modified consent.
-
A "deliberate refusal" by a warden to follow a doctor's recommendation is not the sole basis for liability under the Civil Rights Act; the warden has a duty to investigate and provide necessary medical care.
-
The court denied the motion for an injunction pending appeal, finding no strong showing of likely success on the merits for the plaintiffs' claim that the state's AFDC income reporting program violated federal law or the Constitution.
-
The court held that the district court erred in restraining the SCI from referring by name to individuals during public hearings, as such practice does not inherently violate due process or exceed the SCI's investigatory function.
-
The court held that a slander claim does not violate the Civil Rights Act and that other allegations lacked the required factual specificity.
-
464 F.2d 549·
6th Cir.·
1972-07-26
·cited 2×
The court held that the Tennessee Savings Statute applies to a federal Civil Rights action when the initial state court action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, provided the defendant received notice of the claim.
-
The court held that the school board provided clear and convincing evidence that the decision not to rehire the teacher was not racially motivated, despite the district's history of segregation.
-
457 F.2d 502·
5th Cir.·
1972-04-11
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court's dismissal was improper and the case should be reconsidered in light of a Supreme Court decision.
-
457 F.2d 929·
8th Cir.·
1972-03-29
·cited 2×
Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to review alleged errors in state court judgments, and the Minnesota Supreme Court acted within its jurisdiction.
-
The court held that a teacher denied reemployment by a school board and denied a substitute position by another board failed to establish a constitutional claim, affirming summary judgment.
-
448 F.2d 594·
5th Cir.·
1971-09-17
·cited 2×
A plaintiff alleging a violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not need to exhaust state court remedies before prosecuting an action in federal court.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the city officials' refusal to provide computerized voter data did not constitute a misuse of power or an abridgment of constitutional rights.
-
445 F.2d 393·
5th Cir.·
1971-07-14
·cited 2×
The court held that the arrest was unlawful as a matter of Alabama law, and the arresting officer was not entitled to a good faith defense under Pierson v. Ray because the facts did not constitute a crime and there was no evidence the officer believed otherwise.
-
The court held that the City of Philadelphia is not a "person" under the Civil Rights Act and that the City Solicitor was properly dismissed as the complaint lacked specific allegations against him and his duties did not involve the matter.
-
436 F.2d 583·
7th Cir.·
1970-10-15
·cited 2×
A civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for inadequate representation in a state post-conviction proceeding is insufficient if the alleged damages are not proximately caused by the denial of counsel.
-
The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim involved property rights rather than personal liberties.
-
The court held that the appellant's allegations of a violation of state parole revocation procedures do not present a substantial federal constitutional question.
-
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for lack of federal jurisdiction because the plaintiff's claims were insubstantial and failed to meet the requirements for establishing jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the dismissal order could not be sustained on the grounds presented on appeal, as the statute of limitations defense was not properly raised below and involved factual issues of waiver or estoppel.
-
The court held that while dismissal of the complaint for lack of factual specificity was justified, dismissal of the entire action without an opportunity to amend was improper.
-
396 F.2d 573·
8th Cir.·
1968-06-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing inspection of jury lists and that the plaintiff failed to prove deliberate or systematic exclusion of Negro jurors.
-
The court held that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, as a sufficient administrative process was available to address their claims.
-
The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the sheriff's actions in selling the abandoned vehicle complied with state law and did not constitute a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
The court held that the dismissal of the original action terminated the litigation, and the appellant lacked standing to intervene after the dismissal.
-
A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay state court proceedings, including an execution, except as expressly authorized by Congress or necessary to aid its own jurisdiction or protect its judgments.
-
283 F.2d 692·
6th Cir.·
1960-11-07
·cited 2×
The court held that the district court properly dismissed the complaint.
-
The court held that the prisoner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies and due to pending state proceedings.
-
A pro se prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on the court-approved complaint form warrants dismissal without prejudice, even if the failure was unintentional.
-
The court held that a delay in processing a food assistance application, without more, does not constitute a denial of due process actionable under federal law.
-
The court recommended dismissal of the case without prejudice because the pro se plaintiff failed to comply with court orders to file a proper complaint and pay the filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis.
-
A violation of Miranda rights does not constitute a violation of the Constitution for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and claims previously dismissed as successive habeas petitions cannot be repackaged as § 1983 actions.
-
The court denied defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial and stay discovery, finding that bifurcation was not demonstrably more efficient or necessary to avoid prejudice at this stage.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's third amended complaint must be dismissed because it is subject to dismissal as malicious and abusive of the judicial process, and alternatively, for failure to state a claim on which relief may be granted.
-
An occurrence-based insurance policy covering liability arising out of law enforcement activities requires that the misconduct occur during the policy period; therefore, the insurer had no duty to indemnify where the officers' civil rights violations occurred twenty years before
-
257 So. 3d 604·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2018-10-18
·cited 1×
Mixed petitions containing both mandamus and civil claims are subject to the prepayment and lien requirements of section 57.085, Florida Statutes, and dismissal for failure to pay filing fees is proper.
-
257 So. 3d 1095·
Fla. 2d DCA·
2018-07-13
·cited 1×
A show cause order imposing conditions on future filings is not final and appealable until sanctions are actually imposed after the opportunity to be heard.
-
The district court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish that the officer's conduct violated clearly established law, thus entitling the officer to qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because his use of force during the arrest was reasonable and did not violate the plaintiff's Fourth Amendment rights.
-
750 So. 2d 771·
Fla. 1st DCA·
2000-02-16
·cited 1×
Jacqueline Obenschain, proceeding through a guardian advocate, appealed dismissal of her civil rights complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a habeas corpus petition under Florida law. The court reversed because the trial court lacked basis
-
Lawrence Lawton was held in jail for approximately 607 days on an outstanding capias before being brought before a magistrate, during which time he alleged deprivation of constitutional rights including speedy trial and access to courts. The trial court dismissed his § 1983 civil
-
The court held that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated because adequate post-deprivation remedies existed and the actions were either unauthorized or followed an established procedure that provided sufficient process. Claims for injunctive relief were moot.
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for a due process violation or conspiracy, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was granted.
-
The court held that while federal question jurisdiction was not established because state law claims were also available, abstention under Younger v. Harris was appropriate, leading to dismissal.
-
The court held that the arresting officers' use of force did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation, and therefore affirmed the district court's dismissal of the appellant's claims against the officers and the city.
-
993 F.2d 1337·
8th Cir.·
1993-05-21
·cited 1×
The court held that the plaintiffs' speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it interfered with a government personnel decision and tipped the Pickering balance in favor of the employer's interest in efficiency and discipline. The court also held that the plaintiff
-
992 F.2d 286·
10th Cir.·
1993-05-04
·cited 1×
The court held that the pro se prisoner's notice of appeal was timely filed when delivered to prison authorities, and that his excessive force claim stated a constitutional claim cognizable under § 1983, warranting remand.
-
990 F.2d 745·
3d Cir.·
1993-03-31
·cited 1×
A federal court cannot grant relief under § 1983 for alleged transcript inaccuracies affecting a criminal conviction unless the conviction itself has been successfully challenged, as such claims are premature and essentially constitute a collateral attack on the conviction.
-
The court held that the district judge did not err in giving supplemental jury instructions and allowing redeliberation, nor in restricting cross-examination, nor in instructing the jury on conspiracy, and that the substantive due process instruction error was not preserved for a
-
979 F.2d 1342·
9th Cir.·
1992-11-10
·cited 1×
A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a subordinate's discretionary constitutional violation simply because a policymaker failed to overrule it. Such inaction does not constitute ratification or establish a policy or custom.
-
The court held that the district court properly denied the defendant's motions for qualified immunity, but erred in excluding a key piece of evidence and in failing to question the jury panel on potential bias, entitling the plaintiff to a new trial.