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

• Averitt v. Honorable William G. Cloon, Jr.
  796 F.2d 195· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a public employee's expectation of a future political appointment does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest, and a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest requires alleging public disclosure of discharge reasons that harm reputatio
• Clark v. Fob James
  794 F.2d 595· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a prisoner's escape and failure to appear at a scheduled hearing constitutes abandonment of his claim, justifying dismissal and denial of a Rule 60(b)(6) motion to reinstate, even if recaptured before dismissal.
• Lawson v. Wainwright
  641 F. Supp. 312· S.D. Fla.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Department of Corrections' refusal to permit inmates to receive Hebrew Israelite religious literature and practice their faith violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments, as the faith was bona fide and the materials did not pose a clear and present dange
• Vester v. W.P. Rogers
  795 F.2d 1179· 4th Cir.· 1986-07-18 ·cited 2×
  A prison regulation restricting inmate-to-inmate correspondence between institutions is constitutional if rationally related to legitimate penological objectives and does not constitute an absolute denial of speech rights.
• Rodriguez v. Schweiger
  796 F.2d 930· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-17 ·cited 2×
  A plaintiff's guilty plea in state court collaterally estops them from relitigating facts underlying the plea in a subsequent federal civil rights action, absent special circumstances like fraud or newly discovered evidence.
• Young v. Armontrout
  795 F.2d 55· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the habeas corpus petition without an evidentiary hearing, as the allegations could state a claim under the Eighth Amendment for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs.
• Perkins v. Cabana
  794 F.2d 168· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 2×
  The Mississippi habitual offender statutes are constitutional and do not violate ex post facto, equal protection, or double jeopardy clauses.
• Shouse v. Ljunggren
  792 F.2d 902· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-20 ·cited 2×
  A sheriff is entitled to qualified immunity for holding a parolee without providing notice of parole violation or right to a hearing, as Idaho law places these duties on parole officers, not sheriffs.
• Rivers v. Eli Campbell
  791 F.2d 837· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the school officials' actions did not deprive the plaintiff of due process or freedom of association, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact for his federal antitrust claims.
• The Sewer Alert Comm. v. Pierce Cnty.
  791 F.2d 796· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that res judicata barred the appellants' claims because they involved the same subject matter, cause of action, and parties as a prior state court judgment.
• Bishop v. State BAR OF Tex.
  791 F.2d 435· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the State Bar of Texas is not a 'person' under § 1983 and that its employees are protected by immunity, affirming the dismissal of Bishop's claims.
• Sterling v. Env't Control Bd. OF the City OF NEW York & the City of N.Y.
  793 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 1979 statute's 'nail and mail' service procedure was unconstitutional as applied to absentee landlords because it failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to apprise them of violations.
• LEE v. Evans
  789 F.2d 885· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  A pro se prisoner's complaint alleging deliberate indifference to serious medical needs should not be dismissed prior to service of process.
• Newbury v. Prisoner Review Bd. of the State OF Ill.
  791 F.2d 81· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-19 ·cited 2×
  The Due Process Clause does not require all members of a parole board panel who voted on an inmate's application to be present at the inmate's parole hearing.
• Hank Purcell, Jr. v. Com. Tom Coughlin
  790 F.2d 263· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the complaint adequately stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for interference with mail and retaliation for litigation.
• Brown Harris II v. Mo. Conservation Comm'n
  790 F.2d 678· 8th Cir.· 1986-05-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Missouri law provides adequate post-deprivation remedies for property takings, thus the federal court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
• Lillehaug v. City OF Sioux Falls
  788 F.2d 1349· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 2×
  An appointive officer without a property interest in salary level cannot claim a due process violation when salary is reduced and overpayments recouped, especially when adequate state contract remedies exist.
• Davis v. Harvey
  789 F.2d 1332· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the civil rights action for lack of prosecution and properly denied the appellant's motions.
• Mullins v. The City OF Huntsville
  785 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the City of Huntsville because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the disciplinary actions constituted official policy under Monell.
• W. World Ins. Co., Inc. v. Harford Mut. Ins. Co.
  784 F.2d 558· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 2×
  An insurer's duty to defend is determined by the allegations in the complaint, not the insurer's knowledge of the actual facts, and supervisory liability under § 1983 can arise from negligence.
• Cline v. Supreme Court OF Ga.
  781 F.2d 1541· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 2×
  A state rule distinguishing between graduates of approved and non-approved law schools for bar admission, and limiting the number of times an applicant may take the exam, does not violate substantive due process or equal protection.
• Joyce v. Mavromatis
  783 F.2d 56· 6th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the alleged actions by police chiefs to obstruct a state court lawsuit do not state a federal constitutional claim under the First Amendment, due process, or equal protection.
• Polk v. Montgomery Cnty.
  782 F.2d 1196· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying the doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel because the prior judgment was not sufficiently final and the issues may not be identical.
• Grandstaff v. The City OF Borger
  779 F.2d 1129· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-08 ·cited 2×
• E. Naples Water Sys., Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  627 F. Supp. 1065· S.D. Fla.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that abstention was appropriate, granting the defendants' motion to stay the federal proceedings pending the resolution of a substantially identical state court action.
• Myron A. Hamilton v. Smith
  808 F.2d 36· 10th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a notice of lis pendens may not be filed in anticipation of a money judgment under Utah law.
• Robert Cimasi J. Barleycorn's, Inc. v. City OF Fenton
  781 F.2d 116· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The declaratory judgment exception to res judicata does not apply when a party seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief.
• Hartley v. Camden R. Fine
  780 F.2d 1383· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly instructed the jury on causation and qualified immunity, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a property right in his employment under Missouri law.
• Page v. The Franklin Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  481 So. 2d 43· Fla. 1st DCA· 1985-12-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury instruction and verdict form were erroneous because they required plaintiffs to prove each board member had an impermissible motive, rather than just that the protected conduct was a substantial or motivating factor in the collective decision.
• Love v. Sheffield
  777 F.2d 1453· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 2×
• Penelope Hatteras v. Sw. Bell Tel. Co.
  774 F.2d 1341· 5th Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the termination of telephone service without a pretermination hearing did not violate due process rights when the disconnection was requested by law enforcement based on an indictment.
• Holmes v. Bevilacqua
  774 F.2d 636· 4th Cir.· 1985-10-10 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly granted the defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 41(b) because it found no evidence of intentional discrimination, even if a prima facie case was established.
• Hall v. United States
  773 F.2d 703· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellant was not entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 because her successful injunction claim was not based on the statutes enumerated therein, and the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) did not waive sovereign immunity for attorney fees in Bi
• Wilton v. Mayor & City Council OF Baltimore
  772 F.2d 88· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that correctional officers' union activism, even if considered in promotion decisions, did not violate their First Amendment rights when the employer had a legitimate interest in avoiding conflicts of allegiance in supervisory roles.
• Wadhams v. Procunier
  772 F.2d 75· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a claim for wrongful imprisonment due to a random and unauthorized mistake by state officials, where adequate post-deprivation remedies exist under state law, does not constitute a due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Patten v. Glaser
  771 F.2d 1178· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellant's claims against the state judge.
• Postscript Enters., Inc. v. Hon. George F. Westfall
  771 F.2d 1132· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to address the constitutionality of certain statutes and that the forfeiture statute was not applicable to the seized property. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
• Buford Horton and Laretta Horton v. Marshall Pub. Schs.
  769 F.2d 1323· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Marshall Public School District's policy of excluding minor children solely because they lacked a parent or legal guardian residing in the district violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause.
• Franklin v. A.L. Lockhart
  769 F.2d 509· 8th Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while most of the inmate's claims failed to state constitutional violations, a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding the constitutionality of daily strip searches.
• Baltezore v. Concordia Parish Sheriff's Dep't
  767 F.2d 202· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by substantial evidence, and the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, nor in admitting evidence or directing a verdict on the state law negligence claim.
• Powers v. McGUIGAN
  769 F.2d 72· 2d Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding causation between alleged news leaks and a denial of a fair trial, particularly in light of his guilty plea and failure to utilize available remedies.
• Thornquest v. King
  626 F. Supp. 486· M.D. Fla.· 1985-07-25 ·cited 2×
  Florida community colleges are considered arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes, thus immune from suit in federal court for damages.
• Libertarian Party OF Virginia v. Davis
  766 F.2d 865· 4th Cir.· 1985-07-08 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Virginia's election laws requiring a minimum number of signatures from each congressional district and witnessed by a voter from the same district for ballot access do not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Haas v. Chet Weiner
  765 F.2d 123· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not rise to the level of cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Johnson v. Officer Swyka
  763 F.2d 602· 3d Cir.· 1985-06-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the case must be remanded for reconsideration of the statute of limitations in light of Supreme Court precedent.
• Dodrill v. Ludt
  764 F.2d 442· 6th Cir.· 1985-06-11 ·cited 2×
  A vacated judgment, even if issues were litigated, lacks preclusive effect for collateral estoppel purposes.
• Stermetz v. Judge W.R. Harper & Sebastian Cnty.
  763 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, requiring reconsideration in light of Loudermill.
• Smith v. City OF Cleveland Heights
  760 F.2d 720· 6th Cir.· 1985-05-03 ·cited 2×
  The plaintiff lacked standing because he failed to demonstrate an actual injury, as required by Article III, and his claimed injury was too remote and speculative.
• Royston E. Potter v. Murray City
  760 F.2d 1065· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Utah's prohibition on polygamy does not violate the Free Exercise Clause, the right to privacy, or due process/equal protection, and that the state has a compelling interest in upholding monogamy.
• Smith v. Warden James Rose
  760 F.2d 102· 6th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the availability of a state remedy for property deprivation must be assessed on a case-by-case factual basis, not solely on the theoretical adequacy of state statutes.