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
-
The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the prisoner's religious freedom claim.
-
The court held that genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding whether the jail guards were deliberately indifferent to the detainee's serious medical needs, precluding summary judgment.
-
863 F.2d 205·
2d Cir.·
1988-12-01
·cited 41×
The court held that the Bradys presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding their equal protection and substantive due process claims, requiring reversal of summary judgment on those claims.
-
860 F.2d 321·
9th Cir.·
1988-10-25
·cited 41×
The court held that the district court correctly denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity because the inmate presented sufficient evidence that the digital rectal searches were conducted for punitive purposes unrelated to legitimate security
-
848 F.2d 398·
3d Cir.·
1988-05-25
·cited 41×
The court held that the City of Philadelphia's policy of denying water and sewer service to subsequent property owners for prior customers' delinquent charges is constitutionally permissible under state and local law, and that the promulgation of new regulations mooted notice cha
-
The court held that the district court's finding of a Voting Rights Act Section 2 violation was not clearly erroneous, affirming the injunction against Gretna's at-large election system.
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as neither laches nor untimeliness barred the plaintiffs' due process claims, and the Eleventh Amendment and indispensable party arguments were also without merit.
-
The court held that ethnic Arabs can sue under Section 1981 for racial discrimination and that Al-Khazraji's Section 1981 claim was timely filed under the six-year statute of limitations, but his Title VII claim was untimely.
-
The court denied the petition for rehearing, with a dissent arguing the panel erred in finding the six-month limitations period inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the jury's finding of no probable cause supported the Fourth Amendment violation claim, but Officer Rowland was entitled to qualified immunity due to jury findings of good faith. Municipal liability was not established without proof of a policy or custom.
-
665 F.2d 686·
5th Cir.·
1982-01-11
·cited 41×
Florida's parole statutes do not create a constitutionally protected entitlement to a timely initial parole interview, and therefore, the failure to grant such an interview does not violate due process.
-
654 F.2d 856·
2d Cir.·
1981-07-22
·cited 41×
The limitations period for actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 214(2), which applies to liabilities imposed by statute.
-
596 F.2d 1072·
1st Cir.·
1979-04-18
·cited 41×
Summary judgment for all defendants was proper because the plaintiff's counteraffidavits failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the officers' good faith and reasonable belief that deadly force was necessary.
-
547 F.2d 1260·
5th Cir.·
1977-03-04
·cited 41×
The court held that an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for wrongful discharge based on race and union activity is an ex delicto action, subject to Alabama's one-year statute of limitations for torts not arising from contract.
-
The court held that the complaint, alleging a voluntary patient's suicide due to the superintendent's wanton neglect, could potentially state a federal cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus should not have been dismissed for failure to state a claim.
-
The court held that the hospital's policy of prohibiting abortions, based on an unconstitutional state statute, constituted state action and that denying such abortions caused irreparable injury, warranting injunctive relief.
-
519 F.2d 93·
5th Cir.·
1975-09-15
·cited 41×
The court held that the store's actions, in conjunction with the police, constituted acting under color of law, making them liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that while federal claims for false arrest and violation of constitutional rights were properly dismissed, the district court erred in not submitting the state law claim for false imprisonment to the jury under pendent jurisdiction.
-
The court held that the students' allegations did not establish sufficient state action to support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, nor did they sufficiently allege a conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985(3), 1986, and 1988.
-
A pro se prisoner's failure to accurately disclose prior litigation history on a complaint form, even if unintentional, warrants dismissal without prejudice under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A(a).
-
10 F.3d 1535·
11th Cir.·
1994-01-06
·cited 40×
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish a jury question on the subjective component of their Eighth Amendment claims. The court found no evidence that the county commission had prior knowledge of th
-
891 F.2d 458·
3d Cir.·
1989-11-21
·cited 40×
-
The court held that Johnston's attorneys were not subject to disqualification, the denial of a continuance was not an abuse of discretion, and Johnston could pursue remedies under both Title VII and § 1983 for retaliation.
-
The court held that the jury's verdicts against the City of Everett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were supported by sufficient evidence, both based on an unconstitutional custom of breaking down doors without a warrant and on a policy of deliberate indifference to inadequate training an
-
870 F.2d 400·
7th Cir.·
1989-03-03
·cited 40×
The court held that the doctrine of laches cannot be applied to shorten the statute of limitations for § 1983 employment cases based solely on the accumulation of damages, and that the plaintiff's failure to controvert material facts under Local Rule 12(f) meant those facts were
-
848 F.2d 440·
4th Cir.·
1988-05-03
·cited 40×
The court held that the denial of qualified immunity for some officers was proper, but the grant of summary judgment based on qualified immunity for others was not. The court also addressed the issue of improper motive in qualified immunity analysis.
-
The court held that the city's reliance on a state statute did not qualify as a "factor other than sex" exception under the Equal Pay Act because sex played a part in the wage differential, even if not a significant one. The court also found that the Secretary of Labor's interpre
-
A parish school board is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a plaintiff may state a claim for denial of equal protection if the board discriminates in paying tort judgments between residents and nonresidents.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to consider the appropriate criteria when denying a request for appointed counsel for an indigent civil litigant.
-
793 F.2d 1470·
9th Cir.·
1986-07-11
·cited 40×
The court held that while handicapped students cannot be expelled for misbehavior stemming from their handicap, they can be disciplined or expelled for non-handicap-related misconduct, provided EAHCA procedures are followed. Claims under Section 504 are not cognizable for EAHCA-r
-
The court held that while the complaint adequately alleged a property interest, it did not sufficiently allege a request for a pretermination hearing, and thus remanded to allow amendment. The court also noted that Regan's actions were not random or unauthorized as per Parratt/Hu
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff waived objections to jury instructions by failing to make timely and specific objections at trial and that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find individual defendants did not act with the re
-
761 F.2d 886·
2d Cir.·
1985-05-09
·cited 40×
The court held that a state prisoner alleging a deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate predeprivation procedures, even if a post-deprivation remedy exists, states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the city's failure to provide fire protection during a strike, or police barring striking firefighters from accessing equipment, did not constitute a deprivation of life or property under the Fourteenth Amendment absent a special relationship or discriminatory
-
735 F.2d 391·
10th Cir.·
1984-05-30
·cited 40×
An officer is not constitutionally required to independently verify the validity of an arrest warrant if it is facially valid, but a routine strip search of a detainee for minor offenses, conducted in a public area without specific justification, violates the Fourth Amendment.
-
728 F.2d 15·
1st Cir.·
1984-02-22
·cited 40×
The court affirmed the jury's verdict and damage award, finding no reversible error in the exclusion of evidence, jury instructions, or the award of attorney's fees, and amended the judgment for clarity.
-
A public prosecutor may dismiss an assistant for political reasons if political considerations are an appropriate requirement for the effective performance of the office, as assistants implement the prosecutor's policies and serve society as their client.
-
The court held that while judges are immune from suit and equitable relief is inappropriate, public defenders may be sued under § 1983 if they conspire with judges, and the allegations here were sufficient to allow the suit to proceed.
-
The court affirmed the compensatory damages award but reversed the attorney's fees award, remanding for recalculation and holding the fees are payable by the County. The good faith defense on the § 1983 claim was not decided as recovery was affirmed on the state claim.
-
The court held that the plaintiff's segregation in administrative custody infringed a protected liberty interest, and the reliance on hearsay testimony in the disciplinary hearing violated due process.
-
654 F.2d 1370·
10th Cir.·
1981-06-29
·cited 40×
The court held that claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) should fail due to the 'personal staff' exception and that the plaintiff lacked standing for claims related to his wife's employment.
-
616 F.2d 993·
7th Cir.·
1980-02-22
·cited 40×
The court held that the plaintiff stated claims for due process violations regarding disciplinary segregation and equal protection violations regarding inter-prison transfer, but affirmed summary judgment on the Eighth Amendment claim for macing and the claim for lost property.
-
603 F.2d 1256·
7th Cir.·
1979-08-06
·cited 40×
The court should reverse the district court's decision because the case was improperly referred to a magistrate, exceeding the jurisdiction granted by the Magistrates Act.
-
The court held that a school board can be sued under § 1983 and that Eleventh Amendment immunity does not bar back pay awards against locally controlled school boards. It also affirmed the district court's findings of discrimination and violations of desegregation standards for m
-
The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the jury had sufficient evidence to find bad faith, and the punitive damages award against the Bank was excessive.
-
457 F.2d 7·
1st Cir.·
1972-03-03
·cited 40×
The court held that a landlord's retaliatory eviction, when facilitated by a state-created monopoly in mobile home park spaces due to zoning, constitutes "state action" under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late motion to amend the complaint, excluding employment guidelines due to lack of authentication, and granting a directed verdict for the defendants on due process and emotional distress claims.
-
The court held that the district court's order requiring submission of a remedial plan was a final, appealable order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and that the judge's prior legislative involvement and his children's membership in the plaintiff class did not warrant disqualification.
-
The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding that any errors in admitting evidence or instructing the jury were not material.
-
The court held that the district court improperly excluded probative evidence on the plaintiff's Section 1983 claim, requiring reversal and remand. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Equal Pay Act claim based on the presented facts but remanded for reconsideration due to evi