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

• Guam Soc'y OF Obstetricians & Gynecologists v. ADA
  962 F.2d 1366· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Guam's abortion statute violates the right to privacy established in Roe v. Wade, and that Roe v. Wade applies to Guam via the Mink Amendment. Governor Ada, sued in his official capacity for prospective relief, is a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Aca Murphy, Jr. v. Lancaster
  960 F.2d 746· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in sua sponte dismissing the complaints without prejudice and without notice or an opportunity for the plaintiffs to respond.
• Duane v. Lane
  959 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish deliberate indifference, which is a necessary element for an Eighth Amendment claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Whiting v. Kirk
  960 F.2d 248· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge believes the officials' actions were not objectively reasonable, despite the majority's reliance on qualified immunity.
• Flowers v. Phelps
  956 F.2d 488· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the notices of appeal were sufficient, the Eighth Amendment claim was properly assessed using the malicious intent standard, and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the state law claim due to the intentional nature of
• Barnhill v. Doiron
  958 F.2d 200· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-26 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the inmate's request for appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
• Hancock v. Dodson
  958 F.2d 1367· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that admitting a guilty plea to a misdemeanor and allowing questioning about a prior insurance claim constituted reversible error.
• Diercks v. Durham
  959 F.2d 710· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the supervisor was not entitled to qualified immunity and that the inmate's claim regarding actual damages causation was not preserved for appeal.
• Powell v. W.J. Estelle, Jr.
  959 F.2d 22· 5th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice's grooming code, prohibiting long hair and beards, is rationally related to legitimate penological objectives and does not violate prisoners' First Amendment rights.
• Kan. Health Care Ass'n, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't OF Soc. & Rehab. Servs.
  958 F.2d 1018· 10th Cir.· 1992-03-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff associations lack associational standing because resolving their claims regarding the adequacy of Medicaid reimbursement rates and the state agency's findings requires individualized proof from their member providers.
• Heflin v. Stewart Cnty.
  958 F.2d 709· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-09 ·cited 2×
  The dissenting judge would not find a sufficient causal nexus for liability and would accord individual defendants qualified immunity.
• Acevedo-Cordero v. Cordero-Santiago
  958 F.2d 20· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the denial of summary judgment was proper because genuine disputes of material fact exist regarding whether the ordinance was legislative or administrative, thus precluding a determination of absolute legislative immunity as a matter of law.
• Pletka v. Crispus C. NIX
  957 F.2d 1480· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prisoner transferred under the Interstate Corrections Compact and released into the general population of the receiving state is entitled to due process before being placed back into administrative segregation, regardless of the original reason for segregati
• Jones v. Lewis
  957 F.2d 260· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-25 ·cited 2×
  The district court did not exceed the scope of the appellate mandate by submitting the issue of consent to the jury, and the appellant failed to preserve issues regarding jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence for appellate review.
• Gross v. Heikien
  957 F.2d 531· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-20 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
• Toliver v. Cnty. OF Sullivan
  957 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1992-02-13 ·cited 2×
  The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a Rule 60(b) motion to reopen a judgment for attorney's fees after a notice of appeal had been filed.
• James v. Milwaukee Cnty. & Franklin Lotter
  956 F.2d 696· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the county's inmate classification system constituted deliberate indifference to his safety, thus not violating the Eighth Amendment.
• Pulaski Cnty. Republican Comm. v. Pulaski Cnty. Bd. OF Election Comm'rs
  956 F.2d 172· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs under Rule 11 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988 based on erroneous legal conclusions.
• Stanley Woodbridge (90-3574) v. Dahlberg
  954 F.2d 1231· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that appellants failed to preserve their objection to the jury instruction on supervisory liability by not clearly raising it with the trial court, and the instruction did not constitute plain error.
• Christopher C. DAY, Ph.D. v. Moscow
  955 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that claims against defendants other than Moscow were barred by res judicata and that the arrest/search claims against Moscow were barred by the statute of limitations, as tolling provisions did not apply to federal § 1983 actions.
• Murphy v. Kellar
  950 F.2d 290· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's § 1983 action should not be dismissed as frivolous for failure to adequately identify defendants if discovery might enable such identification.
• Haphey v. Linn Cnty.
  953 F.2d 549· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-09 ·cited 2×
  Pursuing a remedy before a state administrative agency for an unfair labor practice does not preclude a subsequent federal court action for violation of federal constitutional rights.
• Wheeler v. Officer Sims
  951 F.2d 796· 7th Cir.· 1992-01-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the refusal to consider a prisoner's written statement at a disciplinary hearing did not violate due process, and that prison records documenting an inmate's physical activity were admissible as business records.
• Ervan Purnell v. Lord
  952 F.2d 679· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-03 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the revocation of an inmate's correspondence privilege was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that no clearly established liberty interest existed for due process claims, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
• Antonino T. DiMARCO, M.D. v. Rome Hosp. & Murphy Mem'l Hosp.
  952 F.2d 661· 2d Cir.· 1992-01-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an appeal from a denial of qualified immunity is not permissible if the determination of immunity turns on disputed issues of fact or mixed questions of law and fact.
• Harwin v. Goleta Water Dist.
  953 F.2d 488· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-30 ·cited 2×
  A water district ordinance that disqualifies a board member from considering a water service application if the applicant contributed $250 or more to the member's campaign, but does not disqualify the member if an opponent of the application made a similar contribution, violates
• Lane v. Town OF Dover
  951 F.2d 291· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-24 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding the plaintiff was an at-will employee.
• Gabe Kaimowitz v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Univ. OF Ill. & its Inst. of Commc'ns Research
  951 F.2d 765· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a workshare agreement between the EEOC and a state agency can satisfy the requirement to file a charge with the state agency before filing an ADEA claim in federal court, and that state universities are not 'persons' under § 1983.
• Moffitt v. Town OF Brookfield
  950 F.2d 880· 2d Cir.· 1991-12-20 ·cited 2×
  The denial of a claim of qualified immunity is not immediately appealable if it turns on disputed issues of material fact.
• Josette Weimer v. Schraeder
  952 F.2d 336· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the police officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiffs failed to show that their actions violated clearly established law or were unreasonable, and the city was not liable for failure to train.
• William D. Allen, D.D.S. v. La. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  948 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to lift a previously imposed stay, even though the appellant had achieved partial success in state court, because the circumstances justifying abstention had not changed significantly.
• Jourdan v. Jabe
  951 F.2d 108· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-16 ·cited 2×
  The relaxed pleading standard for pro se litigants does not extend to procedural matters like court-imposed discovery deadlines.
• Antoine v. Byers & Anderson, Inc.
  950 F.2d 1471· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 2×
  A court reporter is entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity for acts performed within the scope of their duties, and this immunity extends to their employer.
• Gossman v. Allen
  950 F.2d 338· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because a reasonable official could have believed the plaintiff knowingly or recklessly made false statements. Qualified immunity does not apply to the state law whistleblowe
• Kinney v. Ind. Youth Ctr.
  950 F.2d 462· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-09 ·cited 2×
  The Eighth Amendment governs a prisoner's claim of excessive force used to prevent escape, and the officer's actions in shooting the escaping inmate did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
• Boger v. Wayne Cnty.
  950 F.2d 316· 6th Cir.· 1991-12-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a public employee's emotional distress and humiliation can constitute compensable injury for First Amendment and equal protection claims, and that First Amendment rights are not dependent on having an entitlement to a position.
• Codd v. Brown
  949 F.2d 879· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 2×
  A prisoner does not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in participating in a work-pass program when state law grants the director broad discretion to exclude categories of prisoners.
• Mensh v. R.A. Dyer
  956 F.2d 36· 4th Cir.· 1991-11-21 ·cited 2×
• Longstreth v. City OF Tulsa
  948 F.2d 1193· 10th Cir.· 1991-11-13 ·cited 2×
  A motion to extend the time to file a notice of appeal is not a substantial equivalent of a notice of appeal, and a motion to enlarge time to file a Rule 59 motion is not a Rule 59 motion that tolls the appeal period.
• Price v. Rochford
  947 F.2d 829· 7th Cir.· 1991-11-08 ·cited 2×
  11 U.S.C. § 362(h) creates a cause of action that can be enforced after bankruptcy proceedings have terminated, but summary judgment was appropriate for most defendants due to lack of evidence of willful violation.
• Barket v. ST. Louis Thermal Energy Corp.
  948 F.2d 1084· 8th Cir.· 1991-11-07 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not grant sovereign immunity to Bi-State Development Agency because it is structured more like a local governmental entity than an arm of the states. Therefore, Bi-State is a 'person' amenable to suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Weaver v. Toombs
  948 F.2d 1004· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that imposing costs against indigent prisoners for non-frivolous appeals violates equal protection because it is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
• H. Harlan Stone, M.D. v. Univ. OF Md. Med. Sys. Corp.
  948 F.2d 128· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Maryland Code § 14-601(d) does not bar press access to confidential hospital peer review committee records when they are discoverable under § 14-601(e) and have been filed with and considered by a court in connection with a dispositive motion.
• Texanita Cole v. Ruidoso Mun. Schs.
  947 F.2d 903· 10th Cir.· 1991-10-29 ·cited 2×
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when the plaintiff's alleged rights were not clearly established under the relevant state law at the time of the conduct.
• Hansen v. White
  947 F.2d 1378· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on due process and contract claims, and that an erroneous jury instruction prejudiced the First Amendment claim.
• Nat'l Advertising Co. v. City OF Raleigh
  947 F.2d 1158· 4th Cir.· 1991-10-25 ·cited 2×
  A cause of action for a regulatory taking accrues upon the ordinance's enactment, not upon the expiration of an amortization period, and the First Amendment claims are without merit.
• Losinski v. Cnty. OF Trempealeau
  946 F.2d 544· 7th Cir.· 1991-10-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the victim's estate could not bring a federal due process claim under § 1983 because the state did not create the danger or hold the victim in custody, and that a state law negligence claim against the deputy presented a material issue of fact regarding breach
• Karl Easton, M.D. v. Sundram
  947 F.2d 1011· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for First Amendment retaliation and malicious prosecution, and that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity on the liberty interest claim.
• O'Connor v. Jones
  946 F.2d 1395· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to move for disqualification of opposing counsel, and the district court erred in granting the motion.
• Elcock v. Henderson
  947 F.2d 1004· 2d Cir.· 1991-10-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while a due process violation occurred due to appellate delay, unconditional release was not warranted without a showing of prejudice to the appeal's outcome. The Sixth Amendment claim based on attorney conflict of interest required further factual findings.