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

• Love v. The Alamance Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  757 F.2d 1504· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the school board's articulated reasons for not promoting the plaintiff were legitimate and non-discriminatory, and that the plaintiff failed to prove pretext or a recent history of discrimination sufficient to shift the burden of persuasion.
• Craine v. Alexander
  756 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Board of Supervisors could not be held liable under § 1983 as Mississippi law imposed the duty of prisoner protection on the sheriff, not the Board, and that the Antipeonage Act claim failed due to lack of evidence of state responsibility for the alleged p
• Tosti v. City OF LOS Angeles
  754 F.2d 1485· 9th Cir.· 1985-03-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Monell v. New York City Department of Social Services applies retroactively to discriminatory acts predating the decision, and that the statute of limitations was tolled by the pendency of a related class action.
• Hawai Johnson v. Crispus NIX
  754 F.2d 273· 8th Cir.· 1985-02-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the inmate failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding the prison officials' alleged interference with his newspaper receipt.
• Kines v. DAY
  754 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the prison's "Publishers Only Rule" was not facially unconstitutional and that the inmate's challenge to the rule as applied was not ripe for decision due to insufficient evidence of specific harm.
• Robert-Gay Energy Enters., Inc. v. State Corp. Comm'n OF Kan.
  753 F.2d 857· 10th Cir.· 1985-02-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained under the Burford doctrine and dismissed the federal case, despite potentially having subject matter jurisdiction.
• Johns v. The Supreme Court OF Ohio
  753 F.2d 524· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-30 ·cited 2×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to compel a state supreme court to rehear an appeal or to overturn its decision, even if federal constitutional issues are raised.
• Suffolk Cnty. Patrolmen's Benevolent Ass'n, Inc. v. Cnty. OF Suffolk
  751 F.2d 550· 2d Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the County's policy of offering a limited panel of independent counsel does not facially violate due process or equal protection rights.
• Lloyd v. H.S. McKENDREE
  749 F.2d 705· 11th Cir.· 1985-01-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court did not err in its findings regarding probable cause, administrative confinement, conditions of confinement, access to courts, and denial of an untimely jury trial request.
• Hubenthal v. Cnty. OF Winona
  751 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a post-deprivation remedy is adequate under state law, even if state officials intentionally exceeded the scope of a court order, and thus a § 1983 claim for due process violation is precluded.
• Preston v. Smith
  750 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner's claim for deprivation of property is barred if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, and that claims for unconstitutional segregation require further consideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
• Stoutt v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  598 F. Supp. 1000· S.D. Fla.· 1984-12-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to establish state action for claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Thirteenth Amendment claim could proceed.
• Hockney v. Sch. Comm. OF Lynn
  747 F.2d 50· 1st Cir.· 1984-11-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice and opportunity for a hearing received by the plaintiff was sufficient to satisfy the Due Process Clause, and that her equal protection claims were unsupported by the record.
• Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Webb
  744 F.2d 784· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 2×
  The court certified questions to the Georgia Supreme Court regarding the constitutionality of a state act and its construction, abstaining from deciding the federal claims pending state court resolution.
• McCAW v. Winter
  745 F.2d 533· 8th Cir.· 1984-10-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state court judge and clerk were absolutely immune from liability for actions taken in their judicial capacities, thus the § 1983 action was frivolous.
• Promovision Int'l Films, Ltd. v. Trapani
  744 F.2d 1063· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-04 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the First Amendment claim after the plaintiff properly reserved federal issues under the England doctrine following Pullman abstention.
• Nored v. Blehm
  743 F.2d 1386· 9th Cir.· 1984-10-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the two-year Oregon statute of limitations, as amended in 1977, applies to section 1983 actions, and the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.
• Ammons v. Dade City
  594 F. Supp. 1274· M.D. Fla.· 1984-09-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City of Dade City engaged in unconstitutional racial discrimination by providing unequal municipal services, specifically street paving, to its black residents.
• Ophus A. Hutcherson, Jr. v. Bd. OF Supervisors OF Franklin Cnty.
  742 F.2d 142· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tax Anti-Injunction Act barred federal court jurisdiction because Virginia law provides a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for challenging state taxes, and affirmed the award of attorneys' fees.
• Holt v. Dunn
  741 F.2d 169· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-21 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a court reporter is entitled to qualified immunity when acting within their lawful authority and in good faith compliance with court rules regarding transcript preparation.
• Alexander v. Johnson
  742 F.2d 117· 4th Cir.· 1984-08-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the North Carolina restitution program for court-appointed counsel fees is facially constitutional, the appellant's claim of unconstitutional application must first be exhausted through state remedies, specifically habeas corpus.
• Wright v. TRW Credit Data
  588 F. Supp. 112· S.D. Fla.· 1984-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Florida statutes, warranting dismissal.
• Parks v. Collins
  736 F.2d 313· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a local rule setting procedures for magistrate consent is not jurisdictional, and a party who failed to object to non-compliance below cannot raise the issue on appeal.
• Cipriano v. State OF R.I.
  738 F.2d 535· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants were foreclosed from attacking the district court's amendment of the judgment because their counsel had agreed to the procedure for correcting the perceived inconsistency in the jury verdicts.
• Derrickson v. Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF ST. Louis
  738 F.2d 351· 8th Cir.· 1984-07-11 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the teacher's disruptive internal criticisms were not protected by the First Amendment when balanced against the school's need for efficient operation and harmony, and that these criticisms were not a substantial factor in the non-retention decision.
• Colon-Rivera v. Puerto RICO Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  736 F.2d 804· 1st Cir.· 1984-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars federal court jurisdiction over claims against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its agencies, and erroneous application of state law does not present a federal constitutional claim.
• The Genesee Brewing Co., Inc. v. Vill. OF Sodus Point
  733 F.2d 258· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-01 ·cited 2×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The court held that the village was not required to refund payments made under a state law adopted pursuant to a repealed federal provision, as no federal right to such refunds was created.
• Dock v. Latimer
  729 F.2d 1287· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the alleged failure of parole officials to follow state parole statutes and regulations did not violate the inmate's federal due process rights because the Utah statute did not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole.
• Nees v. Bishop
  730 F.2d 606· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not attach until adversary judicial proceedings have been initiated, and arrest alone does not trigger this right.
• Hopkins v. Cnty. OF Laramie
  730 F.2d 603· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying challenges for cause, admitting certain testimony, or ruling on expert witness fees, and affirmed the jury's verdict.
• Warsocki v. City OF Omaha
  726 F.2d 1358· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-17 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City's affirmative action plan was bona fide and remedial, thus the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of reverse discrimination.
• Zimmerman v. Grievance Comm. OF the Fifth Jud. Dist. OF the State OF NEW York
  726 F.2d 85· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-27 ·cited 2×
  A federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over claims that an attorney was subjected to an unconstitutional application of state bar advertising rules in a state judicial disciplinary proceeding.
• Massey v. Emergency Assistance, Inc.
  724 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1984-01-11 ·cited 2×
  The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding no error of law and no clearly erroneous findings of fact.
• Stephens v. Bowie Cnty.
  724 F.2d 434· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly invoked the Pullman abstention doctrine and dismissed the case without prejudice.
• Mireles v. Crosby Cnty. & Cnty. Judge Robert Work
  724 F.2d 431· 5th Cir.· 1984-01-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court properly invoked the Pullman abstention doctrine, requiring dismissal without prejudice to allow state courts to clarify ambiguous state law.
• Eco N. Hernandez-Avila v. Inspector Averill
  725 F.2d 25· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that Lillian Cora was not a party to the action until 1982 and her attempt to join was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Yancey v. Jacquetta Alexander
  724 F.2d 93· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege the requisite injury from the defendant's actions, thus affirming the dismissal of his section 1983 action.
• Winicki v. Mallard
  441 So. 2d 693· Fla. 1st DCA· 1983-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The appellate court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees to a pro se attorney litigant, despite the attorney's argument that a prior case did not preclude such an award.
• White v. Bond
  720 F.2d 1002· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that some of the pro se plaintiff's allegations, when liberally construed, may state valid civil rights claims, warranting further proceedings.
• Barnard v. Young
  720 F.2d 1188· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-15 ·cited 2×
  A private attorney using a state-authorized subpoena duces tecum to obtain medical records does not act under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Wallace v. State OF Okla.
  721 F.2d 301· 10th Cir.· 1983-11-14 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a suit against the State of Oklahoma for attorneys' fees incurred in a prior state court proceeding, as the state has not waived its immunity from suit in federal court.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  714 F.2d 512· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the state judges for declaratory and injunctive relief never presented a case or controversy because the underlying dependency proceeding had concluded, rendering the claim moot.
• Hope, Inc. v. The Cnty. OF DuPAGE
  717 F.2d 1061· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the cause of action because they failed to demonstrate a particularized injury fairly traceable to the defendant's actions and redressable by judicial intervention.
• Graham v. Deukmejian
  713 F.2d 518· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs have standing and state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that abstention by the district court was improper.
• Armstead v. State OF La. Thru the La. Dep't OF Corr.
  714 F.2d 360· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 2×
  The magistrate erred by taking an overly rigid view of deference due prisoner disciplinary proceedings, requiring reversal and remand.
• Wilkins v. Whitaker
  714 F.2d 4· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 2×
  A state official's random and unauthorized negligent or intentional act causing loss of property does not violate due process if the state provides a postdeprivation remedy.
• Cmty. Med. Ctr. v. Emergency Med. Servs. of Ne. Pa., Inc.
  712 F.2d 878· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate sufficient state involvement in the private entity's actions to establish state action, thus the district court correctly dismissed the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Telford v. Clackamas Cnty. Hous. Auth.
  710 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 2×
  A public employee's contract for proprietary functions is not void if it extends beyond the term of the contracting public body, provided it is reasonable and made in good faith.
• McMullen v. Carson
  568 F. Supp. 937· M.D. Fla.· 1983-07-14 ·cited 2×
  A government employer may discharge a terminable-at-will employee for exercising First Amendment rights if the discharge is justified by compelling governmental interests, such as maintaining public confidence and efficient law enforcement, and is the least restrictive means avai
• Cannon v. Beckville Indep. Sch. Dist.
  709 F.2d 9· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 2×
  A public employee's unilateral expectation of continued employment, even if based on past practice or informal assurances, does not create a property interest protected by due process unless there is a legitimate claim of entitlement derived from a statute, rule, or contract.