42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)

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

• Wisniewski v. Kennard
  901 F.2d 1276· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-29 ·cited 14×
  A material issue of fact exists regarding the use of excessive force, which should have precluded summary judgment.
• Palmer v. City OF Decatur
  814 F.2d 426· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that dismissing a pro se, incarcerated plaintiff's case with prejudice for failure to obtain counsel and respond to a motion within a short timeframe, without adequate notice, constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Bergstralh v. Lowe
  504 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the arrest was legal, as conflicting evidence required jury determination.
• Wynn v. City of Lakeland
  727 F. Supp. 2d 1309· M.D. Fla.· 2010-07-20 ·cited 13×
  The court held that summary judgment is granted for assault and negligence claims, but denied for excessive force and battery claims.
• Peraza v. Delameter
  722 F.2d 1455· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police canine policy and evidence of subsequent bad acts, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Kladis v. Brezek
  823 F.2d 1014· 7th Cir.· 1987-06-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court did not err in altering the judgment to enter judgment for the defendants on the claim that the plaintiff was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, as no constitutional right requires such notification.
• Evonne J. NEW v. City OF Minneapolis
  792 F.2d 724· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that allegations of intentional excessive force by law enforcement implicate substantive due process rights, regardless of state tort remedies.
• Dudley Teel v. Deputy Sheriff Jonathan Lozada
  99 F.4th 1273· 11th Cir.· 2024-04-18 ·cited 11×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, or the grant of summary judgment on the Monell claim.
• Pleasant v. Zamieski
  895 F.2d 272· 6th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 11×
  The concurring judge agrees with the majority's result but disagrees with the reasoning in Section II, believing the excessive force issue should have been left to the jury.
• Hudson v. McMILLIAN
  929 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×
  A prisoner's claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment fails if the injury sustained is not significant.
• Hendrix v. Matlock
  782 F.2d 1273· 5th Cir.· 1986-02-18 ·cited 10×
  The jury instructions on excessive force were not erroneous because they accurately reflected the established standard for individual officer liability under Section 1983.
• FOX v. Parker
  626 F.2d 351· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976 applies to cases pending on its effective date, but fees cannot be awarded for services related to a voluntarily dismissed appeal because the party was not the "prevailing party" for that portion.
• Iwoinakee Gebray Harris-Billups v. Milele Anderson
  61 F.4th 1298· 11th Cir.· 2023-03-13 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, entitling her to qualified immunity.
• Miller v. Lovett
  879 F.2d 1066· 2d Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court erred in instructing the jury on excessive force using an outdated subjective standard and in dismissing the state-law claims.
• Orlean Hopkins v. Andaya
  958 F.2d 881· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-05 ·cited 8×
  The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the reasonableness of the officer's use of deadly force, and the dismissal of the state wrongful death claim was also improper.
• Russo v. City OF Cincinnati
  953 F.2d 1036· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 8×
  The City may be held liable for failure to adequately train its police officers in the use of deadly force against mentally disturbed individuals if the failure amounts to deliberate indifference.
• Foster v. Metro. Airports Comm'n
  914 F.2d 1076· 8th Cir.· 1990-09-20 ·cited 8×
  An arresting officer's subjective motive is irrelevant to a Fourth Amendment unlawful arrest claim if probable cause exists for the arrest. The use of force during an arrest is judged by an objective reasonableness standard, considering the totality of the circumstances.
• Phillipe Dell Fargo v. City OF SAN Juan Bautista
  857 F.2d 638· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether the officer's conduct constituted gross negligence, thus reversing summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claim against him. Summary judgment for other defendants was affirmed.
• Clark v. T.V. Beville
  730 F.2d 739· 11th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict for actual and punitive damages, and that the district court did not err in denying summary judgment.
• Martinez v. Rosado
  614 F.2d 829· 2d Cir.· 1980-01-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate's verified complaint sufficiently controverted the defendants' affidavits to raise triable issues of fact regarding an alleged beating by a prison guard, precluding summary judgment.
• Sherika Franklin v. Popovich
  111 F.4th 1188· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to show a violation of a clearly established constitutional right, as the suspect's actions could reasonably be perceived as a threat justifying deadly force.
• Pace v. City of Palmetto
  489 F. Supp. 2d 1325· M.D. Fla.· 2007-06-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the officer was entitled to qualified immunity on the excessive force claim and statutory immunity on the assault and battery claim because his actions were objectively reasonable under the circumstances and did not violate clearly established law.
• Knight v. Harris D. Caldwell
  970 F.2d 1430· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the trial court's jury charge, which asked about injury before damages and did not require proof of 'significant injury,' was not plain error and was consistent with Supreme Court precedent.
• Niehus v. Vince Liberio and Frank Vittorio
  973 F.2d 526· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-20 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury's award for excessive force was supported by evidence, and that a loss of consortium claim cannot be brought under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• Hygh v. Jacobs
  961 F.2d 359· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that expert testimony stating an officer's conduct was 'totally improper' and 'not justified' crossed the line into legal conclusions, but was harmless error. The court also held that a dismissal 'in the interest of justice' does not constitute a favorable terminat
• Frohmader v. Deputy D. Wayne
  958 F.2d 1024· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of excessive force under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard and due process, but failed to present sufficient evidence of serious medical needs for an inadequate medical attention claim.
• Dethorn Graham v. City OF Charlotte
  827 F.2d 945· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Fourth Amendment, not the Eighth Amendment, governs claims arising from investigatory stops, and the reasonableness of the seizure is a jury question.
• Carter v. Jasper Greg Rogers
  805 F.2d 1153· 4th Cir.· 1986-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the jury verdicts were inconsistent and that the evidence supported a finding for the plaintiff on both federal excessive force and state assault and battery claims, requiring a new trial.
• Powell v. Levit
  640 F.2d 239· 9th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence of the plaintiff's prior juvenile adjudication and a sixteen-year-old criminal conviction was prejudicial error.
• Saladino v. Winkler
  609 F.2d 1211· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's relationship with a witness, prior inconsistent statements, intoxication, and awareness of unlawful conduct was proper and did not deprive the plaintiff of a fair trial.
• Morgan v. City OF Marmaduke
  958 F.2d 207· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-27 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the district court did not err in excluding evidence of a prior incident involving Jetton and a motorcyclist, nor in its judgment for the City. However, the court reversed the judgment against Jetton, finding the admission of evidence regarding the Caraway inc
• Wing v. George Britton & the City of Springdale
  748 F.2d 494· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-26 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the jury instructions regarding reasonable force and self-defense were proper, and that the district court correctly granted summary judgment for the city.
• Kane v. P.K. Hargis
  987 F.2d 1005· 4th Cir.· 1993-01-14 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court correctly denied summary judgment on the excessive force claim, finding the officer's conduct potentially violated clearly established law, and correctly granted summary judgment on the denial of medical treatment and malicious prosecution c
• Hudson v. McMillian
  962 F.2d 522· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the force used against the prisoner was unnecessary, wanton, and applied maliciously and sadistically to cause harm, violating the Eighth Amendment.
• Bogan v. Stroud
  958 F.2d 180· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that defendants waived their right to appeal the jury's award of punitive damages without compensatory damages by failing to object to the jury instruction that permitted such an award.
• Kirk v. Davis
  936 F.2d 971· 7th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence presented a jury question as to whether the defendants had reason to suspect the plaintiff's injuries were serious immediately after arrest and at the police station.
• Patrick v. The City OF Detroit
  906 F.2d 1108· 6th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the district court erred in limiting cross-examination on the extent of injuries, this error was relevant only to damages, not liability, and thus a new trial is required solely on the amount of compensatory damages.
• HAY v. The City OF Irving
  893 F.2d 796· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the jury's excessive force findings were supported by evidence, the conspiracy claim was improperly submitted, and damages for constitutional deprivation were impermissible.
• Miller v. Emery Leathers
  885 F.2d 151· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-12 ·cited 4×
  The dissenting judge believes a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the use of force, precluding summary judgment.
• Jackson v. Crews
  873 F.2d 1105· 8th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury instructions were proper, the damages and attorney fees awards were supported by the evidence, and the defendant's other claims of error lacked merit. The court affirmed the district court's judgment.
• Pressly v. H.H. Gregory
  831 F.2d 514· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that magistrates are immune from suit for judicial acts and that a § 1983 claim challenging incarceration is a habeas petition requiring dismissal for lack of jurisdiction over the custodian.
• Waggoner v. Mosti
  792 F.2d 595· 6th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the jury's answers to special interrogatories were not irreconcilably inconsistent and affirmed the trial court's denial of a new trial. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees.
• Sanchez v. Obando-Echeverry
  716 F. Supp. 2d 1195· S.D. Fla.· 2010-03-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the force used by police officers during the arrest was objectively reasonable and not excessive, entitling the defendant county to summary judgment on the battery claim.
• Trammell v. Thomason
  559 F. Supp. 2d 1281· M.D. Fla.· 2008-06-03 ·cited 3×
  The court held that Florida's strict liability dog bite statutes do not apply to police dogs acting in their official duties and that sovereign immunity bars the state law claims. The court also found that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on the Section
• Fernandez v. City of Cooper City
  207 F. Supp. 2d 1371· S.D. Fla.· 2002-05-10 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity as their use of force was objectively reasonable, and the City was entitled to summary judgment on all counts.
• Robinson v. The City OF ST. Charles
  972 F.2d 974· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-14 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict of no liability for the Robinsons and agreed that Jones was not a prevailing party due to the lack of damages awarded, despite a finding of constitutional violation.
• Ada Sandra Kopf v. Wing
  942 F.2d 265· 4th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the appellant presented sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment on claims of excessive force against police officers and a pattern of unconstitutional conduct by the county.
• Dorey v. Hartmann
  2012 WL 4049438· M.D. Fla.· 2022-06-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging excessive force and constitutional violations, was dismissed without prejudice because it failed to state a claim with sufficient factual allegations and improperly invoked the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments instead of the
• Oniasse v. Hernandez
  112 La. 628· M.D. Fla.· 2018-12-03 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendant Deputy Sheriff on the federal claims, finding no genuine dispute of material fact regarding probable cause for arrest or excessive force, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
• Robbins v. City of Miami Beach
  769 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 2011-01-20 ·cited 2×
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss, finding that while some assault and battery claims against an officer were dismissed for failure to state a claim, other claims, including excessive force and conspiracy, could proceed.