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

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

• Harkless v. The Sweeny Indep. Sch. Dist.
  427 F.2d 319· 5th Cir.· 1970-06-02 ·cited 163×
• Taylor v. James G. Ledbetter, PH.D.
  818 F.2d 791· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the complaint did not allege facts showing the defendants had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to the child. The court also held that the Georgia fos
• Samuel v. Univ. OF Pittsburgh
  538 F.2d 991· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-29 ·cited 63×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in decertifying the class for restitution and in denying restitution to the named appellants, reversing those decisions.
• Karole K. Jensen v. Conrad
  747 F.2d 185· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that even if a constitutional right to affirmative protection existed, it was not clearly established at the time of the alleged deprivations, and good faith immunity applied.
• Taliferro v. Augle
  757 F.2d 157· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that while the jury's finding of liability was not against the weight of the evidence, the compensatory damages award was excessive and required a remittitur or a new trial on damages.
• Stebbins v. Weaver
  537 F.2d 939· 7th Cir.· 1976-07-07 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the plaintiff did not possess a property or liberty interest sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment procedural protections regarding the denial of tenure.
• Grochowski v. Clayton Cnty.
  961 F.3d 1311· 11th Cir.· 2020-06-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jail's classification process and hourly rounds did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment, and thus the jail supervisors were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also found no basis for municipal liability against the county.
• MacLean v. City of St. Petersburg
  194 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2002-03-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, and that her speech was not a matter of public concern for First Amendment protection.
• Smith v. Barton
  914 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs' First Amendment claims under § 1983 were not precluded by the Rehabilitation Act, and that plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on their § 504 claims due to seeking legal remedies.
• Pritchett v. R.N. Alford
  973 F.2d 307· 4th Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the denial of qualified immunity for officers regarding Robert Pritchett's arrest and the Garage's removal from the wrecker list, finding clearly established rights were violated.
• Erwin D. Phillips v. Loy Calhoun
  956 F.2d 949· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 6×
  A city attorney's employment, conditioned on terms like 'for the good of the service' and classified as unclassified service under the city charter, does not create a cognizable property interest sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment due process protections.
• Wasena Wooten v. Clifton Forge Sch. Bd.
  655 F.2d 552· 4th Cir.· 1981-07-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a principal reassigned to a teaching position with a salary reduction, under a continuing contract, did not have a protected property or liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment, as Virginia law permitted such reassignment without cause or a hearing. Th
• Cannon v. Lindsey
  243 F. Supp. 2d 1339· M.D. Fla.· 2003-01-14 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity at the motion to dismiss stage because the plaintiff adequately pleaded a constitutional violation of a clearly established right, and the statute of limitations issue is not ripe for resolution.
• Scala v. City of Winter Park
  105 F. Supp. 757· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the officials who terminated the plaintiff's employment did not possess final policy-making authority. Therefore, their actions could not be attributed to the City as official policy.
• Swofford v. Sheriff Charles F. Mandrell
  969 F.2d 547· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's pro se complaint, alleging a pretrial detainee was severely beaten and sexually assaulted in jail without intervention for eight hours, stated a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious harm, and thus should n
• Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and the operative facts occurred there.
• Dunning v. Officer Arturo Gonzales
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-03
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim for relief against the officers in their official capacities because it did not allege facts showing a custom or policy caused the constitutional violation.
• Vann v. Tabil
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-08-16
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded an Eighth Amendment claim for deliberate indifference but failed to state a Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim, and that his claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were moot due to his transfer.
• Corpus v. Depass
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-07-24
  The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss and for a more definite statement, dismissing the amended complaint without prejudice.
• LeBlanc v. Town of Fort Myers Beach
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-08-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for violation of his constitutional rights under Section 1983, as his allegations lacked factual support and did not identify a fundamental right or constitutionally inadequate process.