42 U.S.C. § 1983

12,666 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 447 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Howard v. NEW Jersey Dep't OF Civil Serv.
  667 F.2d 1099· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-04 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the physical agility test because they failed the initial written examination.
• Kilcoyne v. Morgan
  664 F.2d 940· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-27 ·cited 10×·via Section 1983
  The court held that deviations from gratuitously provided procedural safeguards do not give rise to a constitutional claim under Section 1983, and that state law breach of contract claims were barred by sovereign immunity as it existed prior to its abrogation.
• Johnson v. Granholm
  662 F.2d 449· 6th Cir.· 1981-11-06 ·cited 10×
  Public officials performing quasi-judicial duties and prosecutors are immune from damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions within their official scope. A municipal body is not liable for employee actions absent a policy or custom.
• Cleophus Feemster v. Dehntjer
  661 F.2d 87· 8th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in giving jury instructions on defenses that applied to claims the plaintiff had abandoned during trial.
• Muir v. Ala. Educ. Television Comm'n
  656 F.2d 1012· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-21 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues that a public broadcaster's cancellation of a program based on its content, without following procedural safeguards, constitutes unconstitutional censorship.
• Vill. OF Arlington Heights v. Reg'l Transp. Auth.
  653 F.2d 1149· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts lack jurisdiction to hear challenges to state tax laws when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts, and that municipalities cannot challenge state statutes under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Rose v. Rinaldi
  654 F.2d 546· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-01 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the applicable statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim in Washington is the three-year period for actions for injury to person or rights not otherwise enumerated, not the two-year period for assault.
• Hussey v. Sullivan
  651 F.2d 74· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights action was barred by the most analogous state statute of limitations, which required filing within six months of the alleged illegal act.
• Weaver v. Wilcox
  650 F.2d 22· 3d Cir.· 1981-05-29 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging constitutional violations at a state facility, if properly construed as a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is not subject to the exhaustion of state remedies doctrine.
• Trujillo v. The State OF Colo.
  649 F.2d 823· 10th Cir.· 1981-05-28 ·cited 10×
  Accepting benefits from a conciliation agreement may waive the right to sue on all claims, but this waiver is only effective if the acceptance was voluntary and knowing.
• MacKo v. Bryon
  641 F.2d 447· 6th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that prosecutorial immunity applies to prosecutors acting within their official duties and that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) requires an allegation of class-based discriminatory animus.
• Rendell-Baker v. Kohn
  641 F.2d 14· 1st Cir.· 1981-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the New Perspectives School's actions in discharging staff were not taken "under color of state law" because the school, despite significant state funding and regulation, maintained sufficient independence in its personnel decisions.
• Delcambre v. Delcambre
  635 F.2d 407· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the civil rights action, finding no merit to the claims against the police chief, the town, or the insurance company.
• Aurora O'Neal as Administratrix of Estate of Tyrone O'Neal v. Brinton Esty
  637 F.2d 846· 2d Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in excluding testimony regarding an alleged admission by one of the defendant officers that they "beat up" the plaintiff's deceased husband, as this evidence was crucial to the brutality claim.
• Peterson v. Sheran
  635 F.2d 1335· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts have jurisdiction over constitutional claims arising from state judicial proceedings, but in this case, the appellant's claims were not ripe for review because he failed to present them fully to the state court, and the district court properly a
• Gallagher v. Frye
  631 F.2d 127· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff's federal civil rights claims are not barred by res judicata if they assert a different wrong and seek relief beyond that sought in a prior state court action to enforce an administrative order.
• Pilkington v. Bevilacqua
  632 F.2d 922· 1st Cir.· 1980-10-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court has discretion in awarding attorney's fees, a heightened standard of scrutiny is required when awarding fees to a former law clerk to avoid the appearance of impropriety.
• Ridley v. Leavitt
  631 F.2d 358· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A pretrial detainee's claim of excessive force is not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel, even if the detainee was convicted of assaulting jailers.
• Huemmer v. Mayor & City Council OF Ocean City & Kenneth Kidde & Irving J. McCabe t/a McCabe's BP Serv. Station
  632 F.2d 371· 4th Cir.· 1980-10-09 ·cited 10×
  A municipality sued in its official capacity has no immunity, neither absolute nor qualified good-faith immunity, and is liable for damages resulting from unconstitutional ordinances.
• Kyles v. E. Neb. Human Servs. Agency ("Enhsa")
  632 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1980-10-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that Kyles' dismissal did not violate his due process rights because he had no constitutionally protected property interest in his employment and the reasons for his dismissal did not rise to the level of stigma required for a liberty interest claim.
• Art Hayward, Jr. v. Procunier
  629 F.2d 599· 9th Cir.· 1980-10-03 ·cited 10×
  State prisoners' constitutional rights to procedural due process and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment were not violated by a five-month prison lockdown imposed due to gang violence and killings.
• Elbert v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF Lanark Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. # 305
  630 F.2d 509· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-10 ·cited 10×
  The plaintiff stated a valid claim for deprivation of a liberty interest without due process of law, despite not being deprived of a property right.
• Ark. State Hwy. Emps. Local 1315 v. Kell
  628 F.2d 1099· 8th Cir.· 1980-08-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a public employer's discontinuation of payroll deductions for union dues, even if motivated by anti-union animus or impairing union effectiveness, does not violate the First Amendment or the Equal Protection Clause if it is rationally related to a legitimate s
• Davis v. The United States Dep't OF Hous. & Urban Dev.
  627 F.2d 942· 9th Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the complaint stated grounds for relief against HUD and Pomona officials, reversing the dismissal of claims against them and remanding for further proceedings.
• Kirksey v. City OF Jackson
  625 F.2d 21· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court opinion that casts doubt on the validity of the legal principles used in the original fact-finding.
• 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.
• Smith v. Price
  616 F.2d 1371· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 10×
  The court's holding, as assumed by the panel, was that the Constitution guarantees the right to commit adultery, which the concurring judge believes is erroneous.
• Ginter v. State BAR OF Nev.
  625 F.2d 829· 9th Cir.· 1980-04-29 ·cited 10×
  The State Bar Association, as an arm of the state, is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, but the dismissal of the complaint against the attorneys was not an appealable order.
• Vorbeck v. Whaley
  620 F.2d 191· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 10×
  The district court correctly dismissed the appellant's complaint on res judicata grounds, but erred in awarding attorney's fees without finding the suit frivolous.
• Harless v. Duck
  619 F.2d 611· 6th Cir.· 1980-04-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying relief, finding that the City of Toledo's discriminatory employment practices continued after Title VII applied and that the 1972 examination was not job-related.
• Septum, Inc. v. Keller
  614 F.2d 456· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that by cooperating with the prosecuting attorney, the defendant brought itself within the Younger abstention window, allowing for federal court intervention.
• Stanger v. City OF Santa Cruz
  653 F.2d 1257· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 10×
  A dismissal of a prisoner's civil rights complaint with prejudice for failure to state a claim is appealable, and prisoners are generally entitled to process and an opportunity to amend.
• Mrs. Susie Lite Morrison and Clarence Morrison, Sr. v. City OF Baton Rouge
  614 F.2d 77· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the district court failed to enter a final judgment under Rule 54(b).
• Holmes v. Harrison Goldin
  615 F.2d 83· 2d Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff in a civil rights action should be afforded an opportunity to amend the complaint, especially when the complaint is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
• Berdick v. The United States
  612 F.2d 533· Ct. Cl.· 1979-12-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort, seeking equitable relief, or against private parties, but granted summary judgment on the government's False Claims Act counterclaim, finding that the plaintiff's prior criminal conviction for making false s
• Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. White
  605 F.2d 376· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not frivolous and were not barred by res judicata, requiring an evidentiary hearing.
• Lokey v. Richardson
  600 F.2d 1265· 9th Cir.· 1979-07-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the appellant's claim for damages was not mooted by his return to minimum custody and that the issue of qualified immunity required further factual development.
• Mitchell v. Bd. of Trs. of Pickens Cnty. Sch. Dist. a
  599 F.2d 582· 4th Cir.· 1979-05-25 ·cited 10×
  A school board's policy requiring pregnant teachers to report their pregnancy and using that disclosure as the sole basis for non-renewal of their contract violates Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination.
• United States v. Imperial Irrigation Dist.
  595 F.2d 525· 9th Cir.· 1979-04-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the intervenors had standing to seek enforcement of the acreage limitation statute requiring below-market sales, and denied their motion for attorneys' fees under the substantial benefit theory because no proper party existed to assess fees against.
• Hansbury v. The Regents OF the Univ. OF Cal.
  596 F.2d 944· 10th Cir.· 1979-04-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the claims of post-layoff continuing discrimination under Title VII and Section 1983, as these claims were adequately alleged and potentially viable within the relevant time periods.
• Pittman v. Hutto
  594 F.2d 407· 4th Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 10×
  Prison officials may censor inmate publications if they reasonably believe the content poses a risk to prison order, security, or rehabilitation, and the censorship is narrowly tailored to serve those interests.
• Isadore Ludwin v. City OF Cambridge
  592 F.2d 606· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-16 ·cited 10×
  The court held that federal courts should abstain from interfering with state tax collection, and that a state declaratory action provides an adequate remedy for challenging tax assessments, even when prepayment is required. Damages claims against local officials require a prior
• Hayden J. Watts v. Lou V. Brewer
  588 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-18 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the inmate writ writer, Watts, suffered no personal deprivation of federally protected rights entitling him to monetary damages, and thus summary judgment against him was appropriate.
• Downes v. Beach
  587 F.2d 469· 10th Cir.· 1978-11-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding her First Amendment claim, despite the existence of a prior trial record.
• Ball v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Kerrville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  584 F.2d 684· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the appellant's claim of a liberty interest violation was insubstantial and frivolous, thus the district court did not err in dismissing the suit.
• Smallwood v. Mo. Bd. of Prob. & Parole
  587 F.2d 369· 8th Cir.· 1978-11-03 ·cited 10×
  The court held that claims seeking release or sentence reduction must be brought as habeas corpus petitions, requiring exhaustion of state remedies, and cannot be brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Secret v. Brierton
  584 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-13 ·cited 10×
  Prisoners must exhaust available internal prison grievance procedures before filing a § 1983 claim for deprivation of tangible personal property of no great monetary value.
• McELWEE v. Todd
  581 F.2d 1182· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-11 ·cited 10×
  A nontenured public employee dismissed for possessing marijuana, even if entrapped, does not have a protected property or liberty interest requiring a pre-termination hearing under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Sassi v. Breier
  584 F.2d 234· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 10×
  An amended complaint substituting named defendants for 'John Doe' does not relate back to the original filing if the newly named defendants lacked notice of the action within the limitations period.
• Hurley v. Ward
  584 F.2d 609· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction prohibiting anal and genital searches without probable cause for the specific inmate who brought the action, but did abuse its discretion in granting such relief for all inmat