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

• Burns v. Swenson
  430 F.2d 771· 8th Cir.· 1970-08-31 ·cited 44×
  The court held that while an inmate's access to the ACLU could be reasonably regulated for prison security, the order declaring his prior confinement in maximum security "legally improper" was unwarranted and reversed that portion of the lower court's decision.
• Wiltsie v. Cal. Dep't OF Corr. & Walter Dunbar
  406 F.2d 515· 9th Cir.· 1968-12-31 ·cited 44×
• Washington v. DeBeaugrine
  658 F. Supp. 2d 1332· N.D. Fla.· 2009-10-01 ·cited 43×
  A state official's erroneous denial of a Medicaid beneficiary's federal right to a hearing before benefit termination or reduction can be challenged in federal court, not solely in state court.
• City OF Lauderhill v. Rhames
  864 So. 2d 432· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-10-22 ·cited 43×
  The City of Lauderhill eliminated the Lead Patrol Officer (LPO) position and reorganized its police department, requiring three former LPOs to retake sergeant exams to maintain their supervisory roles. The officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for substantive due process violation
• Martinez v. The City OF Opa-Locka
  971 F.2d 708· 11th Cir.· 1992-09-10 ·cited 43×
  Melanie Martinez, a city purchasing director, was terminated in retaliation for testifying before a municipal board of inquiry about the city manager's violations of bid procedures. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the jury verdict against the individual defendant city manager Conno
• Essie Rollins v. State OF Fla. Dep't OF LAW Enf't
  868 F.2d 397· 11th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 43×
  An employee's disruptive and antagonistic manner of complaining about discrimination, even if the complaints are made in good faith, can fall outside the protection of Title VII's anti-retaliation provision and serve as a legitimate basis for an employer's adverse action.
• WU v. Thomas
  847 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII and Section 1983, and that pay disparities were justified by factors other than sex under the Equal Pay Act.
• Parviz Karim-Panahi v. LOS Angeles Police Dep't
  839 F.2d 621· 9th Cir.· 1988-02-16 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a pro se plaintiff must be informed of the specific deficiencies in their complaint before dismissal, and granted leave to amend for most claims, reversing the district court's dismissal with prejudice.
• Meyers v. Contra Costa Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  812 F.2d 1154· 9th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 43×
• Weber v. Dell
  804 F.2d 796· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-06 ·cited 43×
  A jail policy authorizing strip/body cavity searches of all arrestees without reasonable suspicion violates the Fourth Amendment, and the county and sheriff can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for such a policy.
• Kompare v. Robert Stein, M.D.
  801 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 43×
  The court held that medical examiners are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in performing autopsies and determining causes of death, as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. A violation of a county ordinance does not automatically
• Sun Cha Byrd v. Clark
  783 F.2d 1002· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force claim against Officer Black and in granting summary judgment for Officer Whitley on the failure to intervene claim, but affirmed summary judgment for other defendants on other claims.
• Patzner v. Burkett
  779 F.2d 1363· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless home arrest, and that the use of excessive force presented a question of fact for the jury. However, the county was not liable due to lack of notice of prior misconduct.
• Piatt v. Ellis MacDOUGALL
  773 F.2d 1032· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 43×
  A state court judgment does not bar a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the state court did not address the claim on its merits, and a prisoner's claim for unpaid wages is not barred by res judicata if the state failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing for a deliberate p
• Norlock v. City OF Garland
  768 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the suit for failure to perfect service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as the plaintiff failed to comply with the rule's requirements for service by mail and did not seek an extension of time.
• Harden v. Adams
  760 F.2d 1158· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 43×
  The court held that while Eleventh Amendment immunity barred claims against the university and officials in their official capacities, qualified immunity did not shield certain officials from liability for alleged First Amendment and due process violations in their individual cap
• Baumann v. Ariz. Dep't OF Corr.
  754 F.2d 841· 9th Cir.· 1985-02-28 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a prisoner has no constitutionally protected liberty interest in custodial release on work or home furlough absent a state statute with a "shall/unless" formula, and thus officials are immune from liability.
• Bowman v. Pulaski Cnty. Special Sch. Dist.
  723 F.2d 640· 8th Cir.· 1983-12-29 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the involuntary transfers of the appellants constituted an abuse of discretion and violated their First Amendment rights, but affirmed the award of attorney fees.
• Bruno Martino and Eugenia Martino v. Santa Clara Valley Water Dist.
  703 F.2d 1141· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the failure to submit a development plan does not, in itself, bar an inverse condemnation claim, and that damages may be recoverable for inverse condemnation.
• DOE v. Dist. OF Columbia
  701 F.2d 948· D.C. Cir.· 1983-01-11 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is not satisfied by merely showing that prison conditions are worse than average; rather, it is defined by evolving standards of decency.
• Concordia v. Bendekovic
  693 F.2d 1073· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 43×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on res judicata without sufficient record evidence, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.
• Whitley v. Seibel
  676 F.2d 245· 7th Cir.· 1982-03-24 ·cited 43×
  The court affirmed the jury's award of damages and attorney's fees, holding that collateral estoppel did not apply to the preliminary hearing and that the jury instructions were proper.
• Van Howell v. Tanner
  650 F.2d 610· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted for most defendants based on probable cause and lack of personal involvement, but reversed dismissal of the claim against Louis Raulerson for alleged assault. Venue transfer was affirmed.
• Harriett Duet Kirk v. Alwynn J. Cronvich
  629 F.2d 404· 5th Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the amended complaint adding the sheriff related back to the original filing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(c), thus avoiding the statute of limitations defense.
• Dorothea Yoggerst v. Stan Stewart
  623 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a reprimand for a casual, private comment about a supervisor's potential termination, made in a context of agency turmoil, could constitute an infringement of First Amendment rights, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding such infringement
• Hildebrand v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Mich. State Univ.
  607 F.2d 705· 6th Cir.· 1979-08-16 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in withdrawing the case from the jury after trial had begun, as the plaintiff's claims for actual and punitive damages entitled him to a jury trial.
• Holley v. Abe Lavine
  605 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 43×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of retroactive welfare benefits against a County Social Services Commissioner, as a county is not an 'arm of the State' for these purposes. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees.
• Drummond v. Fulton Cnty. Dep't OF Fam. & Child's. Servs.
  563 F.2d 1200· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-28 ·cited 43×
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• Stapp v. Avoyelles Parish Sch. Bd.
  545 F.2d 527· 5th Cir.· 1977-01-17 ·cited 43×
  The dissenting judge holds that a letter of intent from a superintendent does not create a property interest in re-employment protected by due process under Louisiana law.
• Jennings v. Caddo Parish Sch. Bd.
  531 F.2d 1331· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-24 ·cited 43×
  The federal court properly dismissed the suit because the claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.
• In re Estelle
  516 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 43×
  Mandamus is inappropriate because the trial court's decision on the United States' right to intervene, even if erroneous, was not a usurpation of power and the petitioner suffers no irreparable harm.
• Afro Am. Patrolmens League v. Duck
  503 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Toledo Police Department's promotion system, including service requirements and seniority bonuses, perpetuated past discrimination and violated civil rights statutes and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the district court's specific order reducing all
• Jewelle Gresham v. Chambers
  501 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that absent proof of discrimination, informal word-of-mouth recruiting is permissible for staff appointments, and Title VII does not preempt claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Lucas v. Chapman
  430 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 43×
• L.S. v. Scot Peterson
  982 F.3d 1323· 11th Cir.· 2020-12-11 ·cited 42×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the students failed to state a claim for a violation of their substantive due process rights because they were not in a custodial relationship with the officials and did not allege conduct that was arbitra
• Medina v. State
  690 So. 2d 1241· Fla.· 1997-02-10 ·cited 42×
  Pedro Medina, a death row inmate, appealed the denial of his motion for competency determination prior to execution. The Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing under Rule 3.812 because conflicting expert opinions (three experts stating competency,
• Easter House v. Felder
  910 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's procedural due process rights were not violated because the state provided adequate post-deprivation remedies for the alleged errors in implementing its civil commitment scheme, and the specific errors were not foreseeable.
• Thomas A. Schopler, D.D.S. v. Rupert Bliss
  903 F.2d 1373· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-22 ·cited 42×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits against state agencies (DPR and Board) in federal court, and Florida has not waived this immunity. Individual officials are not entitled to absolute or qualified immunity from all claims alleged.
• Harriett L. McMILLIAN v. Svetanoff
  878 F.2d 186· 7th Cir.· 1989-06-06 ·cited 42×
  Summary judgment for the defendant judge was appropriate on claims of race discrimination, political affiliation discrimination, and due process violation, as the plaintiff failed to present genuine issues of material fact.
• Kurowski v. Krajewski
  848 F.2d 767· 7th Cir.· 1988-06-02 ·cited 42×
  A judge may not fire assistant public defenders based on their political affiliations, as this constitutes an administrative act subject to qualified immunity, not judicial immunity.
• Dino Bello v. Walker
  840 F.2d 1124· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 42×
  Municipal officials' deliberate and arbitrary abuse of power to deny a building permit can violate substantive due process, but mere delays in issuing permits do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property.
• Mazie Keller v. Prince George's Cnty.
  827 F.2d 952· 4th Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 42×
  Congress intended Title VII to be an additional, not exclusive, remedy for employment discrimination claims violating the Fourteenth Amendment, preserving the right to bring a § 1983 action.
• Gutierrez v. Lynch
  826 F.2d 1534· 6th Cir.· 1987-08-25 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's due process claims were barred by the Full Faith and Credit Statute and res judicata, and his conspiracy claim lacked specificity, while his privacy claim was not an invasion of a constitutionally protected right.
• Eldridge Lovelace v. Dall
  820 F.2d 223· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff validly consented to a magistrate trial, the denial of appointed counsel was not an abuse of discretion, and the plaintiff waived his right to a jury trial by failing to object to a bench trial.
• Corn v. City OF Lauderdale Lakes
  816 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Section 1983 action for damages was ripe because Florida law does not provide an adequate state remedy for injuries caused by confiscatory zoning ordinances.
• Hall v. Junior Sharpe
  812 F.2d 644· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 42×
  A magistrate judge lacks jurisdiction to conduct a jury trial unless all parties expressly consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c); referrals under § 636(b)(1) or (b)(3) are insufficient authorization.
• DeSHANEY v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  812 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 42×
  The state's failure to protect a child from private violence, even if negligent or reckless, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause unless the state created the danger or assumed a custodial relationship that increased the risk of harm.
• Smith v. The City OF Fontana
  818 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' section 1983 claims. The Parratt doctrine, which limits section 1983 actions based on random and unauthorized deprivations when adequate post-deprivation remedies exist, applies only to procedural due proc
• Sullivan v. Town OF Salem
  805 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 42×
  A landowner has a constitutionally protected property interest in receiving certificates of occupancy if they meet all requirements, and denial solely for unaccepted roads violates due process. However, there is no constitutional right to compel a municipality to accept dedicated