42 U.S.C. § 1983

12,666 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 447 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• LaRon McKINLEY v. Lt. Gary Trattles
  732 F.2d 1320· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-23 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the jury's award of punitive damages for an unconstitutional strip search should be reinstated, subject to a remittitur, and affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability.
• McKAY v. Dayle Hammock
  730 F.2d 1367· 10th Cir.· 1984-03-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the § 1983 claims were timely filed under Colorado's residuary statute of limitations and that the plaintiff stated a claim for deprivation of liberty without due process, distinguishing the case from Baker v. McCollan. The harassment claim also requires furth
• Fouche v. The Jekyll Island-State Park Auth.
  713 F.2d 1518· 11th Cir.· 1983-09-09 ·cited 46×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars the Section 1983 claim against the Park Authority because it is an arm of the state and has not waived immunity, but the Title VII claim can proceed because the right-to-sue letter requirement is equitably waived due to the Attorney General's refusal t
• Hardin v. Stynchcomb
  691 F.2d 1364· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-22 ·cited 46×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding that the majority's reversal was based on a clearly erroneous assessment of the facts regarding the feasibility of accommodating female guards in the Fulton County Jail.
• Caricia J. Fisher v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth.
  690 F.2d 1133· 4th Cir.· 1982-10-07 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a police officer's actions in arresting and briefly detaining a suspect for administrative processing do not violate the Fourth Amendment, even if they violate state law, and that a sheriff cannot be held liable under § 1983 for subordinate's alleged privacy v
• Monahan v. State OF Neb.
  687 F.2d 1164· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the substantive claims were moot or barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies, but remanded for a determination of attorney's fees for one plaintiff who had prevailed on preliminary relief.
• Adler v. Lewis
  675 F.2d 1085· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-30 ·cited 46×
  The Secretary complied with the requirements of section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as the project included all possible planning to minimize harm to parkland and no feasible or prudent alternative existed.
• Russo v. State OF NEW York
  672 F.2d 1014· 2d Cir.· 1982-02-09 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove a favorable termination of the underlying criminal proceeding, and the district court lacked discretion to award attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for a state law claim when the federal civil rights claim was lost. The judgment
• Portia Williams v. The RED Bank Bd. OF Educ.
  662 F.2d 1008· 3d Cir.· 1981-10-26 ·cited 46×
  While abstention under Younger v. Harris is appropriate for state administrative proceedings concerning teacher tenure, the district court should have retained jurisdiction and stayed the federal action pending the outcome of the state proceedings, rather than dismissing it.
• Emmitt G. King v. Blankenship
  636 F.2d 70· 4th Cir.· 1980-12-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court's finding that the force used by Officer Johnson was not actionable excessive force was clearly erroneous.
• Rubie Rogers v. Robert Okin, M.D.
  634 F.2d 650· 1st Cir.· 1980-11-25 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a "more-likely-than-not" standard for forcible medication is inappropriate, and that while the state has interests in protecting patients and others, these must be balanced with patient rights through individualized assessment and due process procedures, not s
• Cruz v. Beto
  603 F.2d 1178· 5th Cir.· 1979-10-05 ·cited 46×
• Clappier v. Flynn
  605 F.2d 519· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the trial court erred in submitting two separate verdict forms for negligence and civil rights violations when both claims sought the same compensatory damages, leading to a potential double recovery.
• Lou J. D'Iorio v. Cnty. OF Del. & Faith Ryan Whittlesey
  592 F.2d 681· 3d Cir.· 1978-12-20 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding the constitutional claims until the relevant state law issues, particularly the interpretation of the Delaware County Home Rule Charter, were resolved by the Pennsylvania state courts.
• Twyman v. Crisp
  584 F.2d 352· 10th Cir.· 1978-09-06 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the prisoner's claims of denial of adequate medical care, denial of procedural due process in reclassification, and denial of access to the law library and courts were without merit.
• Cervoni v. Secretary OF Health
  581 F.2d 1010· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-27 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff physician did not possess a protected property interest in continued reimbursement under Part B of the Medicare Act and therefore had no colorable du
• Kermit Constr. Corp. v. Banco Credito Y Ahorro Ponceno
  547 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1976-12-29 ·cited 46×
  A receiver acting under court orders shares the appointing judge's absolute immunity from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but a bank and corporation accused of conspiring with the receiver do not. Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 and § 1981 were properly dismissed.
• Alred Lewis v. The State OF NEW York
  547 F.2d 4· 2d Cir.· 1976-10-27 ·cited 46×
  A sua sponte dismissal of a pro se prisoner's complaint for failure to state a federal claim is improper if it occurs before adverse parties are served and given an opportunity to respond.
• The SEA Ranch Ass'n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
  537 F.2d 1058· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that abstention was proper for claims of project-wide exemption under the California Coastal Zone Act, but individual parcel exemption claims lacked a case or controversy and should have been dismissed.
• Chambers v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist.
  536 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-219, a three-year statute of limitations for actions based on federal statutes, applies to the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI, and that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed.
• Silver v. Cormier
  529 F.2d 161· 10th Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a public official's threat to withhold legally required payments if a citizen exercises their right of access to the courts constitutes a burden on constitutional rights, and that punitive damages were properly awarded based on the evidence.
• Greenhill v. Bailey
  519 F.2d 5· 8th Cir.· 1975-07-21 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a medical student dismissed for academic reasons, but with a stigmatizing reason reported to a national committee, was deprived of a liberty interest and thus entitled to procedural due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• Wilwording v. Swenson
  502 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1974-09-10 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the petitioner's claim of punishment without any evidence is cognizable in habeas corpus and not barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, controlling weight, or waiver, and is not foreclosed by the nonretroactivity of Wolff v. McDonnell.
• Nelson v. Heyne
  491 F.2d 352· 7th Cir.· 1974-01-31 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the use of disciplinary beatings and tranquilizing drugs in the circumstances presented violated juveniles' Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and that juveniles have a constitutional right to rehabilitative treatment.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  489 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an award of attorney's fees against state officials in their official capacities, payable from state funds, is permissible and not barred by sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment, especially when their conduct was unreasonably obstinate.
• Grafton v. Brooklyn LAW Sch.
  478 F.2d 1137· 2d Cir.· 1973-05-24 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the actions of Brooklyn Law School in dismissing students were not "under color of any State Law," and thus the suit lacked federal jurisdiction.
• Riley Reid v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  453 F.2d 238· 2d Cir.· 1971-12-14 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while abstention was proper, the district court should have retained jurisdiction pending state court determination of state law claims.
• Lon C. Sigafus v. Sheriff Herald D. Brown
  416 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1969-08-04 ·cited 46×
  The court held that a pro se complaint alleging destruction of legal papers necessary for a post-conviction hearing, which frustrates access to the courts, states a claim under the Civil Rights Act and should not be dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.
• Meredith v. Allen Cnty. WAR Mem'l Hosp. Comm'n & Its Individual Members
  397 F.2d 33· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-19 ·cited 46×
• Cooper v. Pate
  382 F.2d 518· 7th Cir.· 1967-06-29 ·cited 46×
  The court held that while prison administrators have discretion, they cannot punish or discriminate against prisoners based on religious faith, and restrictions on religious exercise are subject to close scrutiny.
• Mansell v. Saunders
  372 F.2d 573· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the complaint stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, establishing federal jurisdiction.
• Coleman v. Johnston
  247 F.2d 273· 7th Cir.· 1957-08-12 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint, alleging deprivation of constitutional rights under the Civil Rights Act, stated a sufficient cause of action to prevent dismissal.
• Stanley v. City OF Dalton
  219 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-26 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Police Chief James D. Chadwick, finding that he was entitled to immunity from Police Lieutenant Jerry M. Stanley's First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that while Stanley's speech
• Caban-Wheeler v. William Elsea, M.D.
  904 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court erred in adopting the Special Master's Report without fully addressing direct evidence of discrimination and making complete analytical findings, necessitating a remand.
• Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro
  843 F.2d 631· 1st Cir.· 1988-04-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court erred by not considering the plaintiffs' equitable tolling claim, which was sufficiently raised in the pleadings and memoranda, before granting judgment on the pleadings.
• Allen v. Scribner
  812 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-05 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish essential elements of his claims for demotion and harassment, thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
• Cotner v. Denny Hopkins
  795 F.2d 900· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that while restrictions on future filings for abusive litigants are permissible, a fine imposed as punishment requires specific procedural protections, and sanctions cannot completely bar access to the courts.
• Ustrak v. Fairman
  781 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 45×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of racial discrimination in disciplinary punishment and job denial failed due to lack of evidence, and while retaliation for complaints was proven, the damages awarded were excessive and unsupported.
• Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, but failed to state a cause of action under § 1985. The court also held the claim was not barred by res judicata
• Kelso and Mary Rankin v. City OF Wichita Falls
  762 F.2d 444· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the complaint failed to allege the abuse of government power necessary to elevate an ordinary tort claim to constitutional status under section 1983.
• Pfeil v. Rogers
  757 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, disregarding late-filed materials, and granting summary judgment based on the evidence presented. However, it erred in disallowing affidavits solely for lack of a notarial seal and in re
• Rennie v. Klein
  720 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 45×
  Involuntarily committed mental patients have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication. This right is protected by the Due Process Clause, which requires that any decision to administer such drugs against a patient's will must be based on the "profession
• David D. Daly, M.D., Ph.D. v. Charles C. Sprague, M.D.
  675 F.2d 716· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the First Amendment claim because it failed to consider it, remanding for that purpose. However, it affirmed summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding the plaintiff failed to establis
• United Carolina Bank CTA of the Est. of Seymour I. Somberg v. Bd. OF Regents OF Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
  665 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 45×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary relief against state university officials in their official capacities, and Stephen F. Austin State University is an arm of the state. Individual defendants may be liable for constitutional violations if they knew or should have know
• Cruz v. W. B. (Bill) Hauck
  627 F.2d 710· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying class certification based on mootness of individual claims and the class's claims, and that the issue of mootness of the class's claims should not have been considered at the certification stage.
• Brown v. Bd. OF BAR Exam'rs OF the State OF Nev. & Bd. of Governors of the State Bar of Nev.
  623 F.2d 605· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-18 ·cited 45×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court's decision on an individual application for admission to the bar, even if the claim alleges arbitrary application of rules or constitutional violations.
• Holt v. Pitts
  619 F.2d 558· 6th Cir.· 1980-02-27 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
• Harkless v. The Sweeny Indep. Sch. Dist.
  608 F.2d 594· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-19 ·cited 45×
  The court affirmed the award of attorneys' fees, finding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in calculating the amount, but remanded for determination of fees for the appeal.
• Kermit West v. Keve
  571 F.2d 158· 3d Cir.· 1978-02-15 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the dismissal of the prisoner's complaint was improper, reversing the judgment and remanding for further proceedings on both injunctive relief and damages claims.
• Churruca v. Miami Jai-Alai, Inc.
  353 So. 2d 547· Fla.· 1977-11-17 ·cited 45×
  Professional jai-alai players sued fronton owners for tortious conspiracy to deprive them of employment following a failed 1968 strike. The Florida Supreme Court held that the complaint states a valid cause of action for tortious conspiracy when employers acting in concert malici