42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages

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

• Moore v. State OF Ind.
  999 F.2d 1125· 7th Cir.· 1993-07-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint because the proposed amendments would be futile.
• Theodore and Janice Frutiger v. Hamilton Cent. Sch. Dist. & Thomas E. Sobel
  928 F.2d 68· 2d Cir.· 1991-03-20 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the district court's order denying an evidentiary hearing was procedural and not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) because plaintiffs had failed to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Reid Knutson v. Wis. AIR Nat'l Guard & Gerald D. Slack
  995 F.2d 765· 7th Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a National Guard member's claim for reinstatement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is nonjusticiable, as it unduly interferes with military decision-making and discipline.
• Pasterczyk v. Fair
  819 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 2×
  A prior state court judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief, which granted sentence credit, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal § 1983 damages action for the same underlying grievance, as the damages claim could have been raised in the state action.
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  791 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State Bar of Texas is not a 'person' under § 1983 and that its employees are protected by immunity, affirming the dismissal of Bishop's claims.
• Fontaine v. Walls
  515 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prisoner's suit for damages based on alleged physical mistreatment and improper confinement is a Section 1983 claim, not subject to the exhaustion requirement for habeas corpus actions.
• L.M.E., Inc. v. City of Hollywood
  605 F. Supp. 185· S.D. Fla.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 1×
  The court affirmed the granting of a coastal construction permit to the City of Hollywood, finding that the developer, Woodholly Associates, Inc., properly raised the issue of the City's burden to prove the necessity and justification for the development.
• Bankshot Billards, Inc. v. City of Ocala
  692 F. Supp. 2d 1343· M.D. Fla.· 2010-02-12
  The court held that the City of Ocala's Ordinance 5650 is unconstitutionally vague on its face, violating due process rights, and therefore granted declaratory and injunctive relief to the plaintiff.
• Mohamed Abdul Hafiz El-Tabech v. Gunter
  992 F.2d 183· 8th Cir.· 1993-04-30
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court's order was not final and no injunction had been entered.
• Malady v. Crunk
  902 F.2d 10· 8th Cir.· 1990-04-27
  A conviction for the offense for which a person was arrested serves as a complete defense to a § 1983 action alleging the arrest was made without probable cause.
• CHU v. Griffith
  771 F.2d 79· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-30
  The court held that the imposition of a $1,000 attorney sanction was warranted and affirmed the district court's decision, while also awarding costs and attorney's fees for the appeal.
• Cole v. Benson
  760 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-26
  The court affirmed the denial of temporary and preliminary injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion by the district court in deferring to prison officials' decisions on inmate placement.
• J.C. Sims v. Wyrick
  743 F.2d 607· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-10
  The court held that even if a prison policy banning Black Panther literature was unconstitutional, the inmate could not recover damages because the loss of his transcript was not proximately caused by that policy, but by inadvertence or theft.
• Northwood Apts. v. LaVALLEY
  673 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1982-03-16
  The court held that principles of comity require abstention in a damages action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to redress the allegedly unconstitutional administration of a state tax system.
• Gibson v. Dixon
  579 F.2d 1071· 7th Cir.· 1978-07-25
  The court held that the bank's actions in repossessing and selling the plaintiff's automobile, even when utilizing state statutory procedures, did not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Leavy Campbell v. Cousins
  524 F.2d 925· 5th Cir.· 1975-12-12
  The court held that the district court's findings were not clearly erroneous and that the prisoner's due process claims were foreclosed by case law limiting the retroactive application of Wolff v. McDonnell.