42 U.S.C. § 1983

12,720 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 457 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Henschen v. City OF Houston
  959 F.2d 584· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-30 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The court held that the claim for monetary damages was not moot and should be remanded, but the claim for injunctive relief was not justiciable due to a lack of a present or future threat of harm.
• Sullivan v. Syracuse Hous. Auth.
  962 F.2d 1101· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-29
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to bring an Establishment Clause claim based on his personal injury as a resident and as a parent, and reversed the district court's dismissal on that ground.
• Fernandez v. Leonard
  963 F.2d 459· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-29
  The court held that the district court did not err in its rulings regarding fraud on the court, autopsy photographs, or the admission of evidence concerning prior convictions and weapons, and that the jury verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.
• Healy v. Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 625
  962 F.2d 1304· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-28
  The court held that the school district's decision to terminate transportation benefits did not violate the parents' substantive due process, equal protection, or free exercise rights. The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Moises Derechin v. State Univ. OF NEW York
  963 F.2d 513· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-28
  A district court may, within its sound discretion, impose Rule 11 sanctions on an attorney without the possibility of reimbursement from any source, including employer indemnification, to further the rule's deterrent purpose.
• Blair-Bey v. Crispus NIX
  963 F.2d 162· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-27
  The court held that a penitentiary's policy of providing a single Islamic religious advisor does not violate inmates' First Amendment rights, even if they belong to a specific sect, as long as they are given a reasonable opportunity to exercise their religious freedom.
• Cagle v. Gilley
  957 F.2d 1347· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-24
  The court held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the deputies' First Amendment rights regarding political affiliation for their positions were not clearly established at the time of their non-reappointment.
• Dell'orfano v. Romano
  962 F.2d 199· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that the plaintiff was improperly denied a jury trial and that the district court's analysis of his due process claim regarding administrative segregation was incomplete.
• Gareth West v. Ruff
  961 F.2d 1064· 2d Cir.· 1992-04-23
  The court held that the inmate did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate his claim in the state court proceeding, thus precluding the application of res judicata/collateral estoppel.
• Diaz v. Romer
  961 F.2d 1508· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-20
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the HIV policy, did not err in creating subclasses or awarding attorney's fees, and did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery and awarding associated fees.
• Gomez v. The United States Dist. Court FOR the N. Dist. OF Cal.
  966 F.2d 460· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-20
• Smith v. Erickson
  961 F.2d 1387· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-20
  The court held that the district court correctly granted summary judgment on the prisoner's civil rights claims, denying his appeals regarding discovery and injunctive relief.
• Nicholson v. Moran
  961 F.2d 996· 1st Cir.· 1992-04-16
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the inmate's pro se complaint, as it stated cognizable claims under Section 1983 and state law.
• Esmael Balboa Tijerina v. Plentl
  958 F.2d 133· 5th Cir.· 1992-04-16
  A motion to proceed IFP can serve as a notice of appeal, and the case must be reconsidered in light of a new Supreme Court decision on excessive force claims.
• Earle A. Partington v. Joseph Gedan & Howard T. Chang
  961 F.2d 852· 9th Cir.· 1992-04-14
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding the claims non-justiciable due to mootness, immunity, Rooker-Feldman, Younger abstention, or failure to state a federal constitutional deprivation.
• Addison v. Ronda Pash
  961 F.2d 731· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-08
  The court held that the dismissal of claims against certain defendants was proper, but the dismissal of claims against other defendants prior to service was erroneous because the claims were not frivolous.
• Longstreth v. Maynard
  961 F.2d 895· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-06
  The court held that the appeals of Longstreth and Mosier were not moot despite policy changes, and that Justus's claim regarding the sincerity of his religious beliefs presented genuine issues of material fact requiring further proceedings.
• Myers v. Judge Vogal
  960 F.2d 750· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-03
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's complaint as frivolous, either due to lack of an arguable basis in law or fact, or because the statute of limitations had run.
• Ellis v. Evans
  960 F.2d 741· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-02
  The court held that summary judgment was properly granted for the prison officials because the inmate failed to present a genuine issue of material fact and the defendants adequately supported their motions.
• United OF Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Solomon
  960 F.2d 31· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-30
  The court held that the state's actions did not deprive the plaintiff of a protected liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause, and thus the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
• Prince v. Warden Sargent
  960 F.2d 720· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-30
  The court held that the district court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and affirmed the dismissal of the inmate's § 1983 action.
• Koester v. Wellsville-Middletown R-1 Sch. Dist.
  960 F.2d 69· 8th Cir.· 1992-03-26
  The court held that the trial court did not err in ruling on the legal issues of the case, as the stipulation to implement a plan did not divest the court of jurisdiction over unresolved controversies.
• Ramos-Melendez v. Valdejully
  960 F.2d 4· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-24
  The court affirmed the judgment, finding no clear error in the magistrate's factual determination that the plaintiff's demotion was not substantially motivated by political affiliation.
• Jamshid R. Mody ad Prosequedum for the Heirs-at-Law of Navroze Mody v. The City OF Hoboken
  959 F.2d 461· 3d Cir.· 1992-03-23
  The court held that insufficient evidence was presented to show that the police department's alleged indifference was the product of racial discrimination or that this indifference proximately caused the victim's death.
• Marjane Warren v. Stone
  958 F.2d 1419· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-20
  Public Defender's Office employees are state employees, not county employees, and thus not entitled to county personnel policy protections.
• Republican Party OF Oregon v. Keisling
  959 F.2d 144· 9th Cir.· 1992-03-18
  The court held that Oregon's reapportionment plan, when combined with its staggered term system, does not violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments by temporarily postponing the voting opportunity for certain constituents.
• Garet H. Danvers v. Danvers
  959 F.2d 601· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-17
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding sanctions under Rule 11, but did abuse its discretion by awarding the full amount of attorney fees without considering the mitigation factor.
• Harlan Richards v. Sergeant J.D. White
  957 F.2d 471· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-11
  The court held that a prisoner's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion must yield to legitimate penological objectives and reasonable prison management, and that the prison's denial of the inmate's specific request for a single cell or daily private meditation time w
• Porrata v. Gonzalez-Rivera
  958 F.2d 6· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-04
  The court held that the Secretary of Sports and Recreation was properly held in contempt for violating a consent decree by failing to rehire an employee based on seniority, implicitly requiring good faith adherence to the seniority system.
• Wolotsky v. Huhn
  960 F.2d 1331· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-04
  The court held that a private mental health center receiving significant government funding and leasing state property was not a state actor for purposes of § 1983, and that a § 1985 claim failed for lack of class-based animus.
• Crot v. Byrne
  957 F.2d 394· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-28
  The court held that the Illinois Industrial Commission's determination that the plaintiff's discharge did not cause his stroke collaterally estopped him from relitigating that issue in a subsequent federal action.
• MOY v. Cowen
  958 F.2d 168· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14
  The court held that the appellant, a voter who intervened in the district court, lacked standing to appeal the district court's judgment because she did not demonstrate a concrete injury. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
• Carrelli v. Ginsburg
  956 F.2d 598· 6th Cir.· 1992-02-12
  The court held that the Ohio Racing Commission's drug testing regulations, requiring reasonable cause, do not violate the Fourth Amendment, and that the publication of positive test results in conjunction with adjudication proceedings does not violate an individual's privacy righ
• Butcher v. City OF McALESTER
  956 F.2d 973· 10th Cir.· 1992-02-12
  The court held that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find the City liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating plaintiffs' First Amendment rights, but reversed awards for humiliation due to insufficient evidence.
• Rory Nitcher v. Does
  956 F.2d 796· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-10
  The court held that the MDOC and State were improperly awarded damages on their counterclaim as they were not proper parties, but affirmed the denial of Nitcher's constitutional claims and the award of actual damages to eight prison officials for abuse of process.
• Caballero v. City OF Concord
  956 F.2d 204· 9th Cir.· 1992-02-05
  The court held that a jury instruction requiring proof of specific intent to violate constitutional rights for a false arrest claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was erroneous.
• Podberesky v. Kirwan
  956 F.2d 52· 4th Cir.· 1992-01-31 ·via Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that a race-based affirmative action program must be justified by specific findings of past discrimination and demonstrate present effects of that discrimination, which the lower court failed to adequately establish.
• Yost v. Solano
  955 F.2d 541· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  The court held that parole officers Hohnstein and McKenzie were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in conducting Yost's preliminary parole revocation hearing, and that Yost failed to preserve issues regarding the sufficiency of the evidence for jury verdicts.
• Charbonnet v. Sheriff Harry LEE & Lt. Edwin McClendon
  951 F.2d 638· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  A state actor is not liable under § 1983 for a deprivation of property without due process if the deprivation was random and unauthorized, and an adequate post-deprivation remedy is available under state law.
• N. Miss. Commc'ns, Inc. v. Jones
  951 F.2d 652· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  The district court erred in its application of the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting analysis, both by failing to adhere to the law of the case regarding the first prong and by misinterpreting the second prong's requirements for the defendant.
• Stewart v. Parish OF Jefferson
  951 F.2d 681· 5th Cir.· 1992-01-28
  The court held that the employee's speech was not a matter of public concern, thus not protected by the First Amendment, and that his claims against one defendant were barred by the statute of limitations.
• Cabinet FOR Human Resources v. N. Ky. Welf. Rights Ass'n
  954 F.2d 1179· 6th Cir.· 1992-01-24
  The court held that the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 implies no private right of action prior to exhausting state administrative remedies and creates no substantive rights enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Zeien v. Palmer
  955 F.2d 506· 8th Cir.· 1992-01-23
  The court held that the Department of Human Services' policy of canceling AFDC benefits based on a single child support payment, without estimating the likelihood of future payments, complies with the Social Security Act and federal regulations.
• Pacheco v. Morales
  953 F.2d 15· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-03
  The court held that a district court cannot dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim after a default without providing the plaintiff notice of the hearing's purpose.
• Johnson v. Dick Busby
  953 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-24
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding certain evidence, denying a request to reopen the case, and in its jury instructions regarding serious medical needs.
• McKINNEY v. Maynard
  952 F.2d 350· 10th Cir.· 1991-12-23 ·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that the dismissal of the inmate's pro se complaint as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) was improper because the complaint stated an arguable basis in law or fact for his First Amendment religious practice claims.
• Berrier v. Sherrill Allen
  951 F.2d 622· 4th Cir.· 1991-12-13
  North Carolina prison regulations concerning administrative segregation do not create a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• Kovacich v. Benjamin
  951 F.2d 114· 7th Cir.· 1991-12-12
  The court held that the magistrate judge erred by refusing to give a jury instruction detailing Indiana law prohibiting the submission or approval of false mileage claims, as this instruction was essential for the jury to properly determine the employer's motive.
• Jennings
  948 F.2d 194· 5th Cir.· 1991-12-10
  The Fifth Circuit held that the district court abused its discretion by improperly calculating the least severe sanction under Rule 11, based on erroneous findings regarding notice and the point at which fees should be limited.
• Harris v. Bolin
  950 F.2d 547· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-02
  The court held that the detention center's policy of opening, inspecting, and retaining non-privileged mail deemed obscene, and the failure to forward or deliver such mail to an inmate, did not violate the inmate's constitutional rights or constitute a denial of procedural due pr