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

• 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.
• Davet v. Enrico MacCarone
  973 F.2d 22· 1st Cir.· 1992-08-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's rulings, finding no reversible error in the denial of punitive damages, the refusal to grant a new trial, the award of costs, or the dismissal of the attorney fees claim due to lack of jurisdiction.
• Villanova v. Abrams
  972 F.2d 792· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the civil commitment was based on probable cause and did not violate the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments, and that procedural requirements do not create substantive liberty interests.
• Kincaid v. Kendall I. Vail
  969 F.2d 594· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the clerk of court was entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for actions taken at the direction of a judge, and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding a constitutional violation.
• Carlton Johnson v. Webb Thompson, M.D.
  971 F.2d 1487· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-06 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the section 504 claim and granting directed verdicts on the section 1983 claims, as the plaintiffs failed to establish discrimination solely based on handicap or provide evidence of constitutional violations.
• Lake Lucerne Civic Ass'n v. Dolphin Stadium Corp.
  801 F. Supp. 684· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that homeowner associations have standing for injunctive relief but not compensatory damages, and denied motions to dismiss based on indispensable parties and Eleventh Amendment immunity, while granting in part motions to strike allegations previously adjudicated.
• Rumford Pharmacy, Inc. v. City OF E. Providence
  970 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-31 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for procedural due process violations because it did not allege the unavailability of adequate state remedies, and lacked standing for injunctive relief as its injury was not redressable.
• Cooper v. Lane
  969 F.2d 368· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-22 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a party waives arguments not presented to the district court in opposition to a summary judgment motion, even if the moving party's submission appears to raise factual issues.
• Clifton v. Schafer
  969 F.2d 278· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a temporary, random, and unauthorized deprivation of welfare benefits, for which an adequate post-deprivation remedy exists, does not violate due process under § 1983, and that the cited federal regulation does not create a right enforceable under § 1983.
• Washington v. Lake Cnty.
  969 F.2d 250· 7th Cir.· 1992-07-10 ·cited 6×
  After-acquired evidence of an employee's material misrepresentation on an application, discovered after termination, precludes relief for discrimination if the employer can prove it would have made the same employment decision regardless of the protected characteristic.
• Amilcar A.J. Marchetti v. Bitterolf
  968 F.2d 963· 9th Cir.· 1992-07-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court's stay order was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine, and thus the appeal should be treated as a petition for a writ of mandamus.
• Felton Hale and Richard S. Berry v. State OF Ariz.
  967 F.2d 1356· 9th Cir.· 1992-06-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the precedent established in Gilbreath v. Cutter Biological dictates that inmates working within the prison system are not covered by the FLSA.
• Carleen Bowen v. City OF Manchester
  966 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that neither Officer DiSabato nor the City of Manchester or Police Chief King were deliberately indifferent to the risk of Mr. Bowen's suicide, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
• T.S. Falls v. Nesbitt
  966 F.2d 375· 8th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 6×
  A prison official's violation of an internal regulation does not create an Eighth Amendment claim unless there is objective evidence of deliberate indifference to a prisoner's constitutional rights.
• Hill v. Marshall
  962 F.2d 1209· 6th Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in labeling a judgment notwithstanding the verdict as a remittitur and in setting aside the jury's punitive damages award, but affirmed the denial of the defendant's motions regarding liability and compensatory damages.
• Tranello v. Frey
  962 F.2d 244· 2d Cir.· 1992-05-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's cross-appeal due to untimely filing, but affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the ADEA claim against the County.
• Koch v. Stanard
  962 F.2d 605· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a defamatory statement must be made incident to an adverse employment decision to infringe a liberty interest.
• Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist.
  963 F.2d 248· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-29 ·cited 6×
  A California school district is considered a state agency for Eleventh Amendment purposes, and thus immune from suit, because its funding is centrally controlled by the state and a judgment against it would be satisfied by state funds.
• Ledoux v. Davies
  961 F.2d 1536· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations and failed to state a constitutional claim for deliberate indifference to medical needs.
• Valenti v. Mitchell
  962 F.2d 288· 3d Cir.· 1992-04-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine did not bar the district court from hearing constitutional claims by parties who were not participants in the prior state supreme court proceedings, even if those proceedings addressed similar issues.
• Ketchum v. Salvador Cruz, M.D.
  961 F.2d 916· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-13 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the lawsuit and its order restricting the plaintiff's future pro se filings, finding the complaint frivolous and the restrictions appropriate.
• 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
• Rogaciano Gonzales Mendoza v. Blodgett
  960 F.2d 1425· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the inmate had a state-created liberty interest in the dry cell policy and was denied due process, prison officials were entitled to qualified immunity. The court also held that the inmate did not have a state-created liberty interest in visitation regul
• McKINNEY v. Anderson
  959 F.2d 853· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 6×
  The court reinstated its prior decision, holding that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) at levels posing an unreasonable risk of harm constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, and remanded for further proceedings to determine if prison officials acted with deliberate
• Chuman v. Wright
  960 F.2d 104· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-27 ·cited 6×
  An interlocutory appeal from the denial of qualified immunity divests the district court of jurisdiction to proceed with trial unless the district court certifies the appeal as frivolous or forfeited.
• Mozzochi v. Borden
  959 F.2d 1174· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 6×
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity for initiating a criminal prosecution supported by probable cause, even if motivated by a desire to chill First Amendment rights, if the prosecution did not actually succeed in chilling the speech or denying access to courts
• Kraebel v. NEW York City Dep't OF Hous. Pres. & Dev.
  959 F.2d 395· 2d Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of J51 claims due to the Tax Injunction Act but reversed and remanded the due process claim regarding SCRIE reimbursements, finding a property interest was established.
• 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.
• Maguire v. Thompson
  957 F.2d 374· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Illinois Medical Practice Act's licensing scheme, which excludes doctors of naprapathy from practicing without additional education, does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Juriss v. McGOWAN
  957 F.2d 345· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-24 ·cited 6×
  The court held that neither officer is entitled to qualified immunity on the false arrest claim because a reasonable officer would have known that the arrest warrant was not supported by probable cause, given the circumstances and the officers' actions.
• Wallace v. Mulholland
  957 F.2d 333· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the trial judge acted within his discretion regarding evidence exclusion, judge's conduct, and attorney fee awards, and that sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict.
• McGEE v. Bauer
  956 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve his JNOV motion against the Village and that the building inspector was entitled to qualified immunity.
• Wilson v. Giesen
  956 F.2d 738· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's civil rights complaint was untimely filed, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Erwin D. Phillips v. Loy Calhoun
  956 F.2d 949· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-11 ·cited 6×
  A city attorney's employment, conditioned on terms like 'for the good of the service' and classified as unclassified service under the city charter, does not create a cognizable property interest sufficient to trigger Fourteenth Amendment due process protections.
• DOE v. Sullivan Cnty.
  956 F.2d 545· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting directed verdicts for certain defendants and in limiting evidence of a felony conviction, but affirmed directed verdicts for other defendants and the jury instructions. The court reversed and remanded for further proceeding
• Hill v. Ibarra
  954 F.2d 1516· 10th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a former AFDC recipient has no enforceable right to have the state agency prioritize collection and distribution of current child support payments if she did not authorize the agency to collect such payments after her benefits ceased.
• Driggins v. City OF Okla. City
  954 F.2d 1511· 10th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the existence of a protected property interest in employment is a question of law for the judge, not the jury, and that the employee did not possess such an interest under the city charter.
• Jackson v. Duckworth
  955 F.2d 21· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-27 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment for defendants on the Eighth Amendment claim is reversed because the prisoner's affidavit raised genuine issues of material fact regarding both the objective severity of the conditions and the subjective intent of the prison officials.
• Mitchell v. Rice
  954 F.2d 187· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to grant qualified immunity to prison officials, as it did not adequately address whether the deprivation of exercise opportunities violated clearly established Eighth Amendment law under the totality of the circumstances.
• Barber v. City OF Salem
  953 F.2d 232· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and that the City was not liable under § 1983 because the decedent's actions did not demonstrate a strong likelihood of suicide, thus not amounting to deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Amato v. Wilentz
  952 F.2d 742· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Essex County lacked third-party standing to assert Warner Brothers' First Amendment rights because Warner Brothers faced no significant obstacle to bringing its own suit.
• Brownell v. Figel
  950 F.2d 1285· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to his medical needs or objectively unreasonable excessive force, and his own contributory negligence barred state law claims.
• O'Bar v. J.C. Pinion, Sr.
  953 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the state officials did not violate the inmate's constitutional rights by removing him from a work release program based on concerns for public safety, and thus were entitled to qualified immunity.
• Holbird v. Armstrong-Wright
  949 F.2d 1019· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×
  The conduct of an attorney, whether retained or appointed, does not constitute action under color of state law for purposes of section 1983 violations.
• Herrera v. Harkins
  949 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-26 ·cited 6×
  A prisoner may use 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge parole procedures, but must use a habeas corpus petition to challenge the fact or duration of confinement.
• Burk v. Beene
  948 F.2d 489· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a state official is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in her official capacity for a Section 1983 claim, but qualified immunity does not shield her individual actions if they violate clearly established constitutional rights based on objective reason
• Nydam v. Lennerton
  948 F.2d 808· 1st Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict and the denial of the defendants' motions for a new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict, finding the damages awarded were not excessive and the attorney fee award was not an abuse of discretion.
• Crumpton v. Gates
  947 F.2d 1418· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-04 ·cited 6×
  A child may bring a Section 1983 action for the loss of familial companionship resulting from the unconstitutional killing of their parent, even if the child was a fetus at the time of the killing, because the injury to the familial right arises postnatally upon the child's birth
• Azul Pacifico v. City OF LOS Angeles
  948 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1991-11-01 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the city's vacancy control ordinance effected a physical taking of mobile home park owners' property without just compensation, but the plaintiff's § 1983 claim was time-barred.
• Pardo v. Hosier
  946 F.2d 1278· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-30 ·cited 6×
  Prison regulations that provide procedural guidelines but do not mandate specific outcomes do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest for inmates. Attorney's fees awards fall if the underlying judgment is reversed.