42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights

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

• Ganey v. Garrison
  813 F.2d 650· 4th Cir.· 1987-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the award of attorneys' fees, finding the plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, but remanded for correction of a potential arithmetical error and to consider fees for the appeal.
• Polk v. Montgomery Cnty.
  782 F.2d 1196· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel because the prior judgment was not sufficiently final and the issues may not be identical.
• Huber v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank OF Memphis
  491 F.2d 846· 6th Cir.· 1974-02-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff was deprived of her automobile without due process of law, in violation of the Constitution.
• Kidanemariam Kassa v. Antionette Stephenson
  11th Cir.· 2022-07-18
  Absolute prosecutorial immunity does not protect a prosecutor for failing to take action to cancel a material witness warrant after the judicial proceeding has concluded.
• Bonett v. Gualtieri
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-11-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's false arrest claim under § 1983 could proceed as it alleged a violation of a clearly established Fourth Amendment right, but dismissed the false imprisonment claim under the Fourteenth Amendment as it stemmed from the arrest and should be analy
• Kincaid v. Monroe Cnty. Detention Ctr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-10-14
  The court held that the plaintiff's conclusory allegations regarding the amount of food provided were insufficient to state a constitutional claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Leo and Arlene Zuchel v. The City & Cnty. OF Denver
  997 F.2d 730· 10th Cir.· 1993-06-23
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict that the City of Denver was liable for the unconstitutional death of Leonard Zuchel due to inadequate training and deliberate indifference.
• Liotta v. Borough OF Springdale
  985 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1993-02-09
  The court held that conclusory affidavits are insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion when alleging political discharge, and that the plaintiff received adequate due process despite not having a clear property interest.
• The Harold Wash. Party v. The Cook Cnty.
  984 F.2d 875· 7th Cir.· 1993-01-29
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the dismissal order under Rule 60(b).
• Henderson Duval Houghton v. Carroll V. South
  965 F.2d 1532· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-11
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on the due process claim because he failed to demonstrate he was a qualified professional or that his decision was based on professional judgment. The court affirmed the dismissal of the equal protection cla
• Gibson v. Foltz
  963 F.2d 851· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-04
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that prison officials acted with deliberate indifference to the inmate's safety, and thus affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• Davis v. Thornburgh
  903 F.2d 212· 3d Cir.· 1990-05-15
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the Pennsylvania Adoption Act's procedures in federal court because the state court's final order terminating her parental rights was res judicata and could not be collaterally attacked. The court also found the claim
• Adams v. Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Comm'n OF the Supreme Court OF Ill.
  801 F.2d 968· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-18
  The court held that a preliminary injunction was properly granted because the Illinois rule prohibiting targeted direct mail advertising by attorneys likely violates the First Amendment, and the district court's findings were entitled to deference.
• Pace v. Oliver
  634 F.2d 302· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-16
  An absolute policy prohibiting prisoners from accessing institutional records for their defense at disciplinary hearings violates procedural due process under Wolff v. McDonnell.