42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations

54 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Wagenmann v. Adams
  829 F.2d 196· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-09 ·cited 78×
  The court held that the arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiff were without probable cause, and that the jury's verdicts on false arrest and false imprisonment were supported by the evidence.
• Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc.
  771 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and the assessment of Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions.
• Lindsey v. Dayton-Hudson Corp.
  592 F.2d 1118· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-05 ·cited 54×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for false imprisonment, assault and battery, and slander were barred by the statute of limitations because the summons was not issued within the one-year period, and the malicious prosecution claim failed for lack of evidence that the de
• Ustrak v. Fairman
  781 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of racial discrimination in disciplinary punishment and job denial failed due to lack of evidence, and while retaliation for complaints was proven, the damages awarded were excessive and unsupported.
• Joseph v. Patterson
  795 F.2d 549· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 34×
  Prosecutors are not absolutely immune for investigative or administrative acts, but are immune for actions directly related to initiating and presenting a criminal case. Investigators generally have qualified immunity.
• Milwe v. Cavuoto
  653 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as its reasoning was based on an overly restrictive interpretation of precedent and failed to consider key factors.
• Forman v. Cmty. Servs., Inc.
  500 F.2d 1246· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-12 ·cited 28×
  Shares in a cooperative housing corporation, even if nonprofit and state-regulated, can be considered 'securities' under federal law if they meet the definition of 'stock' or 'investment contract'.
• Artell M. Henry (81-1767) v. City OF Detroit Manpower Dep't
  763 F.2d 757· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-22 ·cited 26×
  Orders denying motions for appointment of counsel in Title VII and § 1983 actions are not immediately appealable "final decisions" under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
• Taylor v. Gilmartin
  686 F.2d 1346· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing verdicts on the false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress claims, but affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 claim for lack of state action.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Keen v. Fla. Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund
  962 So. 2d 1021· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-08-08 ·cited 22×
  Angela Keen, sexually assaulted by a jail deputy while incarcerated, sued the Florida Sheriffs' Self-Insurance Fund for its refusal to defend or cover the deputy. The court affirmed summary judgment for the Fund, holding that the Fund's policy excludes coverage for criminal acts
• Boone v. Redev. Agency OF the City OF SAN Jose
  841 F.2d 886· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the city and agency are immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine, and that the developers' civil rights claims fail for lack of a vested property right. Koll's lobbying activities are protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine.
• Arlen Yalkut v. Augie Gemignani and Myron Gold
  873 F.2d 31· 2d Cir.· 1989-04-18 ·cited 20×
  Federal agents are immune from state law tort claims under the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act and from federal civil rights claims because no clearly established constitutional right was violated.
• Gowan v. BAY Cnty.
  744 So. 2d 1136· Fla. 1st DCA· 1999-10-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion by dismissing the appellant's claims against CCA with prejudice, as the allegations, though inartfully pleaded, were sufficient to withstand dismissal at this stage.
• Erwin v. Cnty. OF Manitowoc
  872 F.2d 1292· 7th Cir.· 1989-04-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the confusing jury verdict and inconsistent findings necessitated a new trial for all parties.
• Smith v. Freeman
  921 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a reduced hourly rate for attorney driving time and denying an increase in the lodestar for delay or risk of nonpayment, but did err by failing to consider hours spent on a reply brief.
• Singer v. Wadman
  745 F.2d 606· 10th Cir.· 1984-09-27 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the trial judge did not err in refusing to disqualify himself and that summary judgment for the defendants was proper.
• Johnson v. Mateer
  625 F.2d 240· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-03 ·cited 14×
  Collateral estoppel does not bar a plaintiff from litigating Fourth Amendment issues in a Section 1983 action if those issues were previously raised in a state criminal suppression hearing, especially when federal habeas corpus is unavailable.
• McKINNEY v. State of Okla.
  925 F.2d 363· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because the defendants were immune from suit and the claims lacked merit.
• Thomas v. Carpenter
  881 F.2d 828· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-09 ·cited 11×
  A public employee states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for retaliation when their employer takes adverse actions against them for engaging in constitutionally protected speech, even if the employee was not terminated or demoted.
• Hamilton J. Whiting v. Maiolini
  921 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity for discovery is improper.
• von Clark v. Butler
  916 F.2d 255· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-01 ·cited 9×
  The court affirmed the district court's attorney fee award, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination of the hourly rate or the number of hours compensated.
• United Steelworkers OF Am. v. Phelps Dodge Corp.
  896 F.2d 403· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in calculating the attorneys' fee award by failing to adequately explain its reduction of hours and by setting an unreasonable hourly rate.
• Wilson v. Giesen
  956 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was untimely filed, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Kendrick v. Bland
  931 F.2d 421· 6th Cir.· 1991-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the District Court correctly applied a standard requiring institution-wide violations for contempt, but erred in its findings regarding cell searches due to ambiguity in the consent decree.
• Taylor v. City OF Ballwin
  859 F.2d 1330· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-21 ·cited 6×
  The district court abused its discretion by denying Taylor's motion for default judgment against Brouk Ziegler due to its prolonged and unexcused delay in appearing and answering.
• Neal v. Kelly
  963 F.2d 453· D.C. Cir.· 1992-05-19 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner must receive adequate notice before a court can treat a motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, and that a verified complaint can serve as an affidavit in opposition to summary judgment.
• Mark v. Clemons
  870 So. 2d 881· Fla. 1st DCA· 2004-03-16 ·cited 4×
  Appellant obtained a judgment against two Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission officers for federal civil rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and sought payment from Florida's State Risk Management Trust Fund. The trial court dismissed the claim based on an exclusion for int
• Cochrane v. Quattrocchi
  949 F.2d 11· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-15 ·cited 4×
  A prison visitor's consent to a strip search is not legally cognizable if conditioned on the choice between the search and foregoing visitation, and the reasonableness of such a search is a question of fact for the jury.
• Schneider v. TRW, Inc.
  938 F.2d 986· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-10 ·cited 4×
  Summary judgment for the employer is affirmed because the employee failed to raise a triable issue of material fact regarding her claims, including that her layoff was due to a legitimate reduction in force and not discriminatory reasons.
• Muhammed Hassan v. Fraccola
  851 F.2d 602· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-12 ·cited 4×
  A municipality's duty to defend a police officer under N.Y. Pub. Off. Law § 18(3)(a) is triggered by the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint, not by a subsequent factual determination by the municipality.
• Kent v. J.B. Thornhill
  2021 WL 877698· M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court recommended denying the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissing the complaint because it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Parrish v. Donnell Luckie
  963 F.2d 201· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference to police misconduct, and that the admission of prior violent acts was proper to show knowledge of propensity.
• Certain Underwriters AT Lloyd's London Subscribing TO Policy NO. J046137 v. Pierson
  322 So. 3d 106· Fla. 4th DCA· 2021-06-02 ·cited 1×
  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
• Belair v. Lombardi
  828 F. Supp. 50· M.D. Fla.· 1993-08-03 ·cited 1×
  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.
• Larez v. City OF LOS Angeles
  946 F.2d 630· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-27 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the denial of a new trial for the six officers but reversed and remanded for a new trial against Chief Gates and the City due to the erroneous admission of hearsay evidence.
• Murray v. Couris
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaints failed to state a claim because they did not allege direct involvement of defendants, relied on theories not actionable under Section 1983, or named entities not subject to suit. The court dismissed the complaints but gr
• Bishop v. Harper
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-11
  The court recommended dismissal of the complaint because it failed to state a claim, sought relief against immune defendants, and was frivolous in part. Claims against Judge Harper were recommended for dismissal with prejudice due to judicial immunity, while claims against other
• Anaya v. Miami City Hall
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-05-09
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed as a shotgun pleading, fails to name proper defendants, and fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
• Thomas v. Hyler
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-13
  The court held that a non-lawyer proceeding pro se cannot represent other pro se plaintiffs, and that the complaint failed to state claims for false arrest, false imprisonment, and failure to train due to insufficient factual allegations.
• Battle v. Miller
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-20
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaints were impermissible shotgun pleadings and failed to state a claim, but granted leave to amend.
• Davis v. Mina
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-12-21
  The court denied the defendants' motion for sanctions seeking dismissal because the defendants failed to provide proof of proper notice for the plaintiff's depositions.
• Saito v. Moffett
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-09-29
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint must be dismissed because it constitutes a shotgun pleading, is barred by the Younger doctrine, and the defendants are entitled to immunity.
• Robinson v. DeSantis
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-12-21
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion to seal the entire case was denied because it failed to meet procedural requirements and establish good cause to overcome the public's presumptive right of access to judicial records.
• Johnson v. Curry
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-08-08
  The court found the plaintiff's complaint to be a shotgun pleading, making it impossible to conduct a standing analysis or address the merits of the claims.
• Shabazz v. Baker
  M.D. Fla.· 2022-07-22
  The court held that the plaintiff inmate failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the PLRA, and thus his complaint must be dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend.
• Hastings v. Scott
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-01-24
  The court held that a supervisory official cannot be held liable under § 1983 for subordinates' actions absent personal involvement or a policy of deliberate indifference.
• Greenfield
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2017-10-31
  The Delaware Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court determined that the defendants were immune under the Delaware State Tort Claims Act because their actions were d
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Morgan McCaffrey v. City OF Wilmington
  Del. Super. Ct.· 2013-06-26
  The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Wilmington, Sergeant Donald Bluestein, Sergeant Gerald Murray, Corporal Ralph Schifano, Master Sergeant Sherri Tull, and Chief Mich
• Thompson v. Spears
  336 F. Supp. 2d 1224· S.D. Fla.· 2004-07-19
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish an objectively substantial risk of serious harm or deliberate indifference by the county, thus granting summary judgment for the defendants.