42 U.S.C. § 1983

12,720 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 456 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Brooks v. Lt. Andolina
  826 F.2d 1266· 3d Cir.· 1987-08-17 ·cited 7×
  The court held that prison officials violated an inmate's First Amendment and due process rights by disciplining him for a letter and denying him witnesses, and that the inmate was entitled to compensatory damages for actual injuries suffered from punitive segregation.
• Gholston v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Montgomery
  818 F.2d 776· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 7×
  The Housing Act's preference provisions for families occupying substandard housing, involuntarily displaced families, and families paying more than fifty percent of income for rent are not self-executing and do not require local housing authorities to grant such preferences absen
• Straub v. Monge
  815 F.2d 1467· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 7×
  States must provide all prisoners meaningful access to the courts through adequate law libraries or legal assistance from trained persons, regardless of indigency status, and this obligation extends to civil forfeiture proceedings. A policy requiring inmates to obtain a court ord
• Schwartz v. The Mayor's Comm. ON the Judiciary OF the City OF NEW York
  816 F.2d 54· 2d Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 7×
  A judge's expectation of reappointment to the bench does not create a constitutionally protected property right, and the process for evaluating reappointment did not violate due process or liberty interests.
• Messick v. Leavins
  811 F.2d 1439· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-09 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the availability of a state law tort action does not preclude a § 1983 claim when property is deprived without due process pursuant to an established state procedure where predeprivation notice was feasible.
• Greenberg v. Kmetko
  811 F.2d 1057· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-03 ·cited 7×
  Public employees retain First Amendment protection for comments on matters of public concern, including criticism of a government agency's handling of its primary responsibilities, even when such comments are made internally or involve confidential cases, provided the public impo
• Elbert Welch v. Smith
  810 F.2d 40· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-27 ·cited 7×
  An order denying a plaintiff the appointment of counsel to represent him in pursuing the merits of a suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 may not be challenged separately by a direct appeal.
• Cora Arrington v. McDonald
  808 F.2d 466· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting the issue of qualified immunity to the jury, as it is a question of law for the judge.
• McWILLIAMS v. McWILLIAMS
  804 F.2d 1400· 5th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 7×
  A federal court must give a state court judgment the same preclusive effect as a court of that state would, barring a § 1983 claim based on issues that were or could have been litigated in the state proceeding.
• Nelson v. Elliott
  802 F.2d 405· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-17 ·cited 7×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment on state law claims, including damages and injunctive relief, but vacated and remanded the award of attorney's fees for reconsideration.
• Thomason v. McDANIEL
  793 F.2d 1247· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 7×
  A part-time, at-will public employee has no property interest in their job and thus no due process right to a termination hearing, nor is there a liberty interest deprivation without public disclosure of false, stigmatizing reasons for discharge.
• Caprera v. Jacobs
  790 F.2d 442· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-02 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a magistrate lacks jurisdiction to enter a final judgment if not all parties have explicitly consented to the magistrate's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
• Waldron v. Collins
  788 F.2d 736· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-06 ·cited 7×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The absence of a provision for class actions does not render Georgia's procedures for litigating state income tax questions inadequate under the Tax Injunction Act.
• Rosario Schuler v. Chronicle Broad. Co., Inc.
  793 F.2d 1010· 9th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 7×
  An employee must present specific, probative evidence of pretext to survive summary judgment in a discrimination suit, and subjective assertions of competence are insufficient.
• Beauchamp v. Luisa de Abadia
  779 F.2d 773· 1st Cir.· 1985-12-23 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the administrative hearing afforded to the plaintiff satisfied due process requirements, even with the admission of hearsay evidence and limited cross-examination.
• Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  770 F.2d 1228· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 7×
  A state may suspend a driver's license for failure to satisfy a judgment from another state without a pre-deprivation hearing when an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists in state courts to challenge the judgment's jurisdictional validity. Virginia's Motor Vehicle Safety Respo
• Jackson v. Franklin Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  765 F.2d 535· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-18 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a handicapped student's placement may be changed pending administrative and judicial appeals if the student poses a threat to himself or others and disrupts the educational environment.
• Thomas v. Booker
  762 F.2d 654· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-16 ·cited 7×
  Prison officials may be held liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to a pretrial detainee's right to protection from violent attacks by fellow inmates when they act with reckless disregard of that right. The evidence was sufficient to support a verdict against defendant
• Leggett v. Badger
  759 F.2d 1556· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-13 ·cited 7×
  Attorney's fees can be assessed against a state even when damages are awarded only against a defendant official in his individual capacity, provided the state's interests were represented and the state is joined for the fee determination.
• Griffin v. State OF R.I.
  760 F.2d 359· 1st Cir.· 1985-04-16 ·cited 7×
  Res judicata principles bar the plaintiff's federal court action because the claims raised were, or could have been, litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Brown v. E. Cent. Health Dist.
  752 F.2d 615· 11th Cir.· 1985-02-08 ·cited 7×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar suits against East Central Health District, and the applicable statute of limitations for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the two-year period found in Ga.Code Ann. § 9-3-22.
• Hackett v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF SAN Antonio
  750 F.2d 1308· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-21 ·cited 7×
  The court held that while the district court erred in admitting Exhibit Z, the judgment for the defendant should be affirmed because sufficient competent evidence in the record supported the finding of no discrimination.
• Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. Ferre
  606 F. Supp. 122· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendants' petition for removal was not defective due to nonjoinder and that the right to remove was not waived by filing an answer in state court.
• Stough v. Crenshaw Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.: John Rex Sport
  744 F.2d 1479· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the school board failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify its patronage policy, which prohibited teachers from sending their children to private schools.
• Nissan Motor Corp. IN U.S.A. v. Harding
  739 F.2d 1005· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 7×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The court held that the district court did not err in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction because the case presented an unsettled issue of state law regarding the retroactive application of a statute, which could resolve the federal constitutional question.
• Quinn v. Bryson
  739 F.2d 8· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 7×
  A developer's claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for delays in obtaining a building permit, even if due to bad faith by a local official, does not state a claim if state courts are available to correct the error.
• Jones v. The State OF Ga.
  725 F.2d 622· 11th Cir.· 1984-02-21 ·cited 7×
  A probationary state employee terminated during their working test period, whose complaints did not involve matters of legitimate public concern and whose termination was not publicly disclosed, has no property or liberty interest infringed and thus no claim under the First, Fift
• Betts v. Richard
  726 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-23 ·cited 7×
  A prosecutor is absolutely immune from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for actions taken in procuring the attendance of a witness for trial, even if motivated by improper purposes.
• Nesmith v. Taylor
  715 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Nesmith suffered no deprivation of a federal right because he was already under a legitimate compulsion to appear in court, rendering the additional compulsion from the invalid charge non-actionable under section 1983.
• Berrios v. Agosto
  716 F.2d 85· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 7×
  The court held that legislative activities enjoined were protected by common law legislative immunity and no exception applied, thus reversing the district court's order.
• Loh-Seng YO, M.D. v. Cibola Gen. Hosp.
  706 F.2d 306· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-12 ·cited 7×
  The court held that a private hospital receiving government funds and subject to regulation does not automatically constitute state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim unless the state is involved in the specific conduct complained of.
• Jones v. The Bd. OF Governors OF the Univ. OF N.C. & its constituent Inst. The Univ. of N.C. at Charlotte
  704 F.2d 713· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing a preliminary injunction reinstating the student, as grave questions of procedural due process were presented and the balance of hardships favored the student.
• Lamar v. L.A. Steele
  693 F.2d 559· 5th Cir.· 1982-12-14 ·cited 7×
  The court held that jury interrogatories improperly required a finding of intentional and wanton conduct to award damages for denial of access to courts, and that the jury, not the magistrate, should first determine damages.
• Wilcox v. Honorable Edward Miller
  691 F.2d 739· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court should have dismissed the plaintiff's civil rights complaint without reaching the merits because the plaintiff's criminal conviction was still pending on appeal in state court.
• Mid-Fla Coin Exch., Inc. v. Griffin
  529 F. Supp. 1006· M.D. Fla.· 1981-12-16 ·cited 7×
  The court held that abstention doctrines (Pullman and Younger) were not applicable, and plaintiffs were entitled to preliminary injunctive relief regarding the challenged statutes.
• Zamora v. Pomeroy
  639 F.2d 662· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-26 ·cited 7×
• Marrero v. City OF Hialeah
  625 F.2d 499· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-04 ·cited 7×
  A prosecutor is not absolutely immune from liability for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when engaging in investigative or defamatory conduct outside of quasi-judicial roles. Municipalities can be sued under § 1983.
• The Hearth, Inc. v. Dep't OF Pub. Welf.
  617 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Bundy v. Rudd
  581 F.2d 1126· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 7×
  Federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings, and a party seeking pro hac vice admission must demonstrate a protected property or liberty interest, which was not shown here.
• Hooks v. Louie L. Wainwright
  578 F.2d 1102· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 7×
  The trial court did not err in issuing a preliminary injunction to ensure constitutionally adequate inmate access to the courts.
• Krohn v. Harvard LAW Sch.
  552 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that Harvard Law School, as a private institution, is not subject to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because its actions were not taken 'under color of state law.' Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 as he did not allege denial of
• Gajon BAR & Grill, Inc. v. Kelly
  508 F.2d 1317· 2d Cir.· 1974-12-05 ·cited 7×
  The court held that federal courts should not interfere with pending state court proceedings unless absolutely necessary to prevent irreparable injury to constitutional rights, and that a corporation does not possess First Amendment free speech rights.
• Aldridge v. Mullins
  474 F.2d 1189· 6th Cir.· 1973-03-06 ·cited 7×
  A police officer who fires his weapon at an individual without reasonable belief that a crime has been committed or justification for drawing or firing the gun violates the plaintiff's constitutional and civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and may be liable for both compensatory
• The People OF the State OF Miss. On the Relation of Lela Mae Giles v. Thomas
  464 F.2d 156· 5th Cir.· 1972-07-06 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the jury's finding of a settlement agreement was supported by abundant evidence, and the trial court correctly ruled that the defendant officials were immune from suit.
• Denis P. Kelly v. Butler Cnty. Bd. OF Comm'rs
  399 F.2d 133· 3d Cir.· 1968-07-26 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint without a hearing and in requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Natacha Jean-Francois v. The City of N. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court granted the motion for reconsideration, finding that the prior dismissal of Title VII claims may have been based on a misapprehension of the statutory authority required to issue a Notice of Right to Sue against a governmental entity.
• Cowart v. Duro
  2023 WL 5069482· M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-11 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint contained numerous deficiencies, including failure to state a claim, improper citation of statutes, and claims barred by immunity doctrines, requiring a second amended complaint.
• Johnson v. Jones
  2023 WL 4358555· M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-25 ·cited 6×
  The court denied all of the plaintiff's post-judgment motions, finding them moot or without merit.
• 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.
• Mills v. Hamm
  102 F.4th 1245· 11th Cir.· 2024-05-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the inmate failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or that the equities favored a stay of execution, and therefore denied the motion for a stay.