42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim

3,807 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 3,026 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Adler v. Lewis
  675 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 46×
  The Secretary complied with the requirements of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as the project included all possible planning to minimize harm to parkland and no feasible or prudent alternative existed.
• Emmitt G. King v. Blankenship
  636 F.2d 70· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 46×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the district court's finding that the force used by Officer Johnson was not actionable excessive force was clearly erroneous.
• Rubie Rogers v. Robert Okin, M.D.
  634 F.2d 650· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a "more-likely-than-not" standard for forcible medication is inappropriate, and that while the state has interests in protecting patients and others, these must be balanced with patient rights through individualized assessment and due process procedures, not s
• Lou J. D'Iorio v. Cnty. OF Del. & Faith Ryan Whittlesey
  592 F.2d 681· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 46×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the constitutional claims until the relevant state law issues, particularly the interpretation of the Delaware County Home Rule Charter, were resolved by the Pennsylvania state courts.
• Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno
  547 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 46×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  A receiver acting under court orders shares the appointing judge's absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a bank and corporation accused of conspiring with the receiver do not. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981 were properly dismissed.
• Alred Lewis v. The State OF NEW York
  547 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-27 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  A sua sponte dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint for failure to state a federal claim is improper if it occurs before adverse parties are served and given an opportunity to respond.
• The SEA Ranch Ass'n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
  537 F.2d 1058· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 46×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that abstention was proper for claims of project-wide exemption under the California Coastal Zone Act, but individual parcel exemption claims lacked a case or controversy and should have been dismissed.
• Chambers v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist.
  536 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-11 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-219, a three-year statute of limitations for actions based on federal statutes, applies to the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI, and that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  489 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that an award of attorney's fees against state officials in their official capacities, payable from state funds, is permissible and not barred by sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment, especially when their conduct was unreasonably obstinate.
• Meredith v. Allen Cnty. WAR Mem'l Hosp. Comm'n & Its Individual Members
  397 F.2d 33· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-19 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
• Mansell v. Saunders
  372 F.2d 573· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the complaint stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, establishing federal jurisdiction.
• Stanley v. City OF Dalton
  219 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-26 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Police Chief James D. Chadwick, finding that he was entitled to immunity from Police Lieutenant Jerry M. Stanley's First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that while Stanley's speech
• Caban-Wheeler v. William Elsea, M.D.
  904 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 45×·via Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the district court erred in adopting the Special Master's Report without fully addressing direct evidence of discrimination and making complete analytical findings, necessitating a remand.
• Allen v. Scribner
  812 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish essential elements of his claims for demotion and harassment, thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
• Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 45×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, but failed to state a cause of action under § 1985. The court also held the claim was not barred by res judicata
• Kelso and Mary Rankin v. City OF Wichita Falls
  762 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the complaint failed to allege the abuse of government power necessary to elevate an ordinary tort claim to constitutional status under section 1983.
• Pfeil v. Rogers
  757 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, disregarding late-filed materials, and granting summary judgment based on the evidence presented. However, it erred in disallowing affidavits solely for lack of a notarial seal and in re
• Rennie v. Klein
  720 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  Involuntarily committed mental patients have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication. This right is protected by the Due Process Clause, which requires that any decision to administer such drugs against a patient's will must be based on the "profession
• David D. Daly, M.D., Ph.D. v. Charles C. Sprague, M.D.
  675 F.2d 716· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 45×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the First Amendment claim because it failed to consider it, remanding for that purpose. However, it affirmed summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding the plaintiff failed to establis
• United Carolina Bank CTA of the Est. of Seymour I. Somberg v. Bd. OF Regents OF Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
  665 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary relief against state university officials in their official capacities, and Stephen F. Austin State University is an arm of the state. Individual defendants may be liable for constitutional violations if they knew or should have know
• Cruz v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck
  627 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification based on mootness of individual claims and the class's claims, and that the issue of mootness of the class's claims should not have been considered at the certification stage.
• Boraas v. The Vill. OF Belle Terre
  476 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The dissenting judge argues that the Village's zoning ordinance is a rational means to achieve legitimate zoning objectives and should be upheld.
• Donahue v. Staunton
  471 F.2d 475· 7th Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiff's speech, which was found to be disruptive and detrimental to the hospital's operations and patient care, provided justifiable reasons for termination, and thus no constitutional right was violated.
• Carruth v. Bentley
  942 F.3d 1047· 11th Cir.· 2019-11-07 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the defendants caused his injuries and that the defendants violated clearly established constitutional rights, thus affirming the grant of qualified immunity.
• Russillo v. The Honorable Tony Scarborough
  935 F.2d 1167· 10th Cir.· 1991-06-18 ·cited 44×
  The court held that an at-will public employee does not have a constitutionally protected property interest in their job, and termination without a name-clearing hearing does not violate a liberty interest if no false and stigmatizing charges were disseminated by the employer. Th
• Amsden v. Moran
  904 F.2d 748· 1st Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights, and the available state remedies were adequate to satisfy due process requirements.
• Kauffman v. Puerto RICO Tel. Co.
  841 F.2d 1169· 1st Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 44×
  The court held that plaintiffs hired in violation of PRTC regulations had no property interest in their employment and thus no due process claim, and that they failed to present sufficient evidence of political motivation for their dismissals to survive summary judgment.
• Aurea E. Vazquez Rios v. Colon
  819 F.2d 319· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the law regarding 'confidential' employees was not clearly established at the time of the Governor's discharge of domestic staff, thus he should be granted limited immunity.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rios
  813 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for damages for a regulatory taking is premature because they have not exhausted available remedies in Puerto Rico courts, and that claims against officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Pacheco v. Gonzalez
  809 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because it was clearly established that transitory employees are protected from politically motivated non-renewal, but they were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process c
• Kunzelman v. Gervase Thompson
  799 F.2d 1172· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the defendants were not parties or privies to the prior state action, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that inmates lacked adequate access to the courts through the public defender system.
• Huggins v. Isenbarger
  798 F.2d 203· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 44×
  The court must give significant weight to the executive branch's interpretation of state law when state courts have not yet ruled on the matter, especially when that interpretation does not conflict with federal law or constitutional rights.
• Kibbe v. City OF Springfield
  777 F.2d 801· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-27 ·cited 44×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably find a municipality liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for gross negligence in training its police officers, even if the harm resulted from a single evening's events, provided there is evidence beyond the incident itself linking the training
• French v. Owens
  777 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights)
  The court held that while overcrowding, double-celling, inhumane restraints, inadequate medical care, and poor kitchen facilities violated the Eighth Amendment, the district court erred in mandating specific compliance with fire/safety codes and in ordering equal access to rehabi
• Mrs. Peggy Gates v. Spinks
  771 F.2d 916· 5th Cir.· 1985-09-26 ·cited 44×
  The court held that all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions filed in Mississippi are governed by the one-year prescriptive period provided by Miss. Code Ann. § 15-1-35 for intentional torts.
• Lewellyn Acoff v. D.E. Abston
  762 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Garner decision on the use of deadly force applies retroactively and that Officer Abston is not entitled to qualified immunity based on the record, requiring further factual determination on remand. The denial of the motion to dismiss was affirmed.
• Brasslett v. Cota
  761 F.2d 827· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-16 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff's discharge for speech made during a television interview violated his First Amendment rights, reversing the district court's decision on this claim.
• Farrar v. Cain
  756 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  The court held that failure to object to jury instructions or interrogatories generally precludes appellate review, except for fundamental error, and affirmed the denial of damages except for nominal damages against one defendant.
• Hayes v. Shelby Mem'l Hosp.
  726 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 44×
  A hospital's policy of firing a pregnant x-ray technician to protect her fetus from radiation exposure constitutes facial discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the hospital failed to establish a BFOQ or business necessity defense.
• Rookard v. Health & Hosps. Corp.
  710 F.2d 41· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 44×
  The court reversed the district court's dismissal, finding a glimmer of a prima facie case for reversal based on the chaotic conditions at Harlem Hospital and potential constitutional deprivations.
• Miofsky v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  703 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the alleged infringement of rights arises from state court proceedings, and res judicata does not bar claims summarily denied by state appellate courts.
• Berry v. McLEMORE
  670 F.2d 30· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-08 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Liability
  A municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 absent evidence that the constitutional deprivation was pursuant to an official policy or custom, and a plaintiff cannot recover attorney fees from a party dismissed from the suit. However, the district court abused its discretion
• W. v. Norton
  620 F.2d 1375· 10th Cir.· 1980-03-06 ·cited 44×
  A private individual actively conspiring with an immune state official to deprive another of constitutional rights can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even if the state official is immune.
• NEW York State Ass'n FOR Retarded Child., Inc. v. Carey
  596 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-01 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the Consent Judgment required the State to fund additional staff for the Consumer Advisory Board as a necessary expense for carrying out its functions, even if not explicitly listed.
• Robbins v. The Dist. Court OF Worth Cnty.
  592 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the appellants' civil rights action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the issues and causes of action were the same as those litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Perez v. BOU
  575 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the defendant official was not immune from liability for summary suspensions, that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees under § 1988, and that nominal damages were appropriate for the intangible loss of civil rights.
• GAY LIB v. The Univ. OF Mo.
  558 F.2d 848· 8th Cir.· 1977-06-08 ·cited 44×
  The court, evenly divided, denied the petition for rehearing en banc, meaning the panel's decision stands. Judge Gibson dissented, arguing the panel misapplied Fed. R. Civ. P. 52's clearly erroneous standard.
• Burt v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF Edgefield Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  521 F.2d 1201· 4th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 44×
  The court reversed the judgment because the defendants were denied their constitutional right to a jury trial.
• DRY Creek Lodge, Inc. v. The United States
  515 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits without proper notice and a full hearing, as the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently invoked federal jurisdiction.
• Spence v. Patience Latting
  512 F.2d 93· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 44×·via § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by res judicata because he had the opportunity to litigate them in prior state court actions.