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

• Llaguno v. Mingey
  763 F.2d 1560· 7th Cir.· 1985-06-05 ·cited 120×
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict, holding that the police officers had probable cause and sufficient exigent circumstances to enter the Llaguno home without a warrant. The concurring opinion argued that the district court did not commit trial errors sufficient to warrant a n
• Cleo R. Herrera v. Valentine
  653 F.2d 1220· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 120×
  The court held that a jury may award damages for the violation of substantive constitutional rights independent of actual physical or emotional injury, and that the $300,000 verdict was not excessive.
• Anderson v. Nosser
  438 F.2d 183· 5th Cir.· 1971-02-10 ·cited 119×
  The court granted a petition for rehearing en banc, vacating the prior panel decision.
• Benson v. Allphin
  786 F.2d 268· 7th Cir.· 1986-03-10 ·cited 118×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the defendant's failure to move for a directed verdict at the close of all evidence did not waive their right to move for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on qualified immunity grounds. It also held that the plaintiff's claims regarding pre-termination in-
• Anderson v. Nosser
  456 F.2d 835· 5th Cir.· 1972-03-03 ·cited 118×
  A directed verdict was warranted against Superintendent Breazeale for violating arrestees' due process rights through summary punishment at Parchman, and against Chief Robinson for violating Mississippi law by failing to take arrestees before a magistrate.
• Smith v. Cremins
  308 F.2d 187· 9th Cir.· 1962-09-20 ·cited 118×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and that the "liability created by statute" limitation period applied.
• Jordan v. Ga. Dep't of Corr.
  947 F.3d 1322· 11th Cir.· 2020-01-10 ·cited 117×
  Mississippi death row inmates Richard Jordan and Ricky Chase sought information about Georgia's lethal injection drug supplier through a subpoena, arguing it was relevant to their Eighth Amendment challenge to Mississippi's execution protocol and would demonstrate a feasible alte
• Cate v. Oldham
  707 F.2d 1176· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-02 ·cited 117×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the State of Florida in federal court, but granted preliminary injunctive relief against the State Attorney pending certification of state law questions to the Florida Supreme Court.
• Elling O. Eide v. Sarasota Cnty.
  908 F.2d 716· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 116×
  The court concurred with the majority's framework for analyzing ripeness issues in zoning cases, but emphasized the need for greater deference to trial court factual determinations.
• Henzel v. Gerstein
  608 F.2d 654· 5th Cir.· 1979-12-21 ·cited 116×
  The court held that prosecutors, judges, and supervisory officials are immune from § 1983 liability for actions within their official capacities, and that private citizens cannot be held liable for conspiracy with immune officials based on derivative immunity. The § 1985 claim fa
• Sims v. Adams
  537 F.2d 829· 5th Cir.· 1976-08-25 ·cited 116×
  The court held that a complaint alleging supervisory defendants breached a duty owed to the plaintiff, causing constitutional injury, states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and dismissal for failure to state a claim was improper.
• Thurston v. Dekle
  531 F.2d 1264· 5th Cir.· 1976-05-20 ·cited 116×
  The court held that while the lower court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to award backpay, it correctly affirmed the requirement for pretermination procedures that minimize the risk of erroneous dismissal for city employees. The court also found that the named plaintiff lacke
• Marshall v. Sawyer
  301 F.2d 639· 9th Cir.· 1962-03-07 ·cited 116×
  The court held that a state may constitutionally exclude convicted felons from gambling establishments, as gambling is a privilege, not a right, and the state has a compelling interest in regulating it to prevent crime and protect its economy.
• Carlin Commc'n, Inc. v. S. Bell Tel. & Tel. Co.
  802 F.2d 1352· 11th Cir.· 1986-10-23 ·cited 115×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because Southern Bell's decision to restrict Dial-It message content was not state action, as it was not fairly attributable to the state.
• Briggs v. Goodwin
  569 F.2d 10· D.C. Cir.· 1977-09-21 ·cited 115×
  The court held that a prosecutor acting as a witness in a courtroom, answering a judge's question, is performing a function intimately associated with the judicial process and is therefore entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit.
• Samuel W. Brown, M.D. v. Fed'n OF State Med. Bds. OF THE United States
  830 F.2d 1429· 7th Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 114×
  The court held that while the district court correctly imposed Rule 11 sanctions, it abused its discretion by failing to specify the basis and computation of the award, requiring a remand for redetermination.
• Taylor v. James G. Ledbetter, PH.D.
  818 F.2d 791· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-09 ·cited 114×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deliberate indifference under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the complaint did not allege facts showing the defendants had actual knowledge of a substantial risk of harm to the child. The court also held that the Georgia fos
• Turpin v. Mailet
  619 F.2d 196· 2d Cir.· 1980-04-08 ·cited 114×
  The court held that while a municipality's failure to discipline an employee can, in some circumstances, constitute an official policy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the evidence presented in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to establish such a policy.
• Kenney v. Honorable Raymond W. FOX
  232 F.2d 288· 6th Cir.· 1956-04-19 ·cited 114×
  The common law doctrine of judicial immunity, protecting judges and quasi-judicial officers acting within their jurisdiction, has not been abrogated by the Civil Rights Act.
• Wright v. Lanson Newsome
  795 F.2d 964· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the inmate's motion to amend his complaint and erred in dismissing his claims for procedural due process, access to the courts, and pendent state law claims.
• Procup v. Strickland
  792 F.2d 1069· 11th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 113×
• United States v. City OF Chicago
  549 F.2d 415· 7th Cir.· 1977-01-11 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the withholding of federal revenue sharing funds from the City of Chicago was an improper and improvident exercise of equitable discretion.
• Hostrop v. Bd. OF Junior Coll. Dist. NO. 515
  523 F.2d 569· 7th Cir.· 1975-09-24 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the plaintiff's First Amendment rights were not violated, but his procedural due process rights were violated by the failure to provide a hearing. Individual board members are protected by official immunity, but the board itself is liable for damages.
• Elenore Pred and Stanley Etersque v. Bd. OF Pub. Instruction OF Dade Cnty.
  415 F.2d 851· 5th Cir.· 1969-09-09 ·cited 112×
  A public school may not deny a state-created status, such as tenure, to a teacher solely because of their exercise of First Amendment rights.
• Nesmith v. Alford
  318 F.2d 110· 5th Cir.· 1963-05-30 ·cited 112×
  The court held that the initial arrest and imprisonment of the plaintiffs was unlawful as a matter of law, and that the admission of evidence of prior racial strife was erroneous, necessitating a retrial on certain claims.
• Qaid Rafeeq Azeez and Abdullah Muhammad v. Fairman
  795 F.2d 1296· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-30 ·cited 111×
  The dissenting judge believes the damage award to Azeez should be affirmed because prison officials violated his clearly established rights.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR THE Advancement OF Colored People (NAACP) v. Hunt
  891 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1990-01-16 ·cited 110×
  The court held that res judicata barred the Flag Code claim, and the NAACP failed to establish claims under the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments, and § 1983.
• Chauncey L. Moore, Jr. v. The Marketplace Rest., Inc.
  754 F.2d 1336· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-29 ·cited 110×
  The court held that summary judgment should not be granted if the plaintiff alleges an agreement between a private party and law enforcement to violate constitutional rights, and the defendants fail to foreclose the possibility of such an agreement.
• Claudine Hall v. Garson
  430 F.2d 430· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-22 ·cited 110×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of federal jurisdiction and that a claim was stated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but affirmed the refusal to convene a three-judge court.
• Bd. OF Regents OF the State of Fla. v. Snyder
  826 So. 2d 382· Fla. 2d DCA· 2002-07-19 ·cited 109×
  The Board of Regents and individual university administrators appealed the trial court's denial of their motion for summary judgment in a § 1983 civil rights action brought by a tenured professor alleging retaliation for filing ethics complaints. The court granted certiorari and
• McCONNELL v. Critchlow
  661 F.2d 116· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 109×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against states in federal court and that the statute of limitations had run on the civil rights claims, affirming all dismissals.
• Guerro v. Mulhearn
  498 F.2d 1249· 1st Cir.· 1974-06-24 ·cited 109×
  A federal court must stay its hand in a section 1983 damage action if disposition would involve ruling on the legality of a state conviction during pending state proceedings, but not every related action requires exhaustion.
• Hinson v. R.A. Bias
  927 F.3d 1103· 11th Cir.· 2019-06-14 ·cited 108×
  Matthew Hinson sued Jacksonville Sheriff's Office officers for excessive force under the Fourth Amendment and deliberate indifference to medical needs under the Eighth Amendment after his arrest for stabbing a man to death. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the distr
• Williams v. The City OF Valdosta
  689 F.2d 964· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-21 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict and a new trial, as the plaintiff presented sufficient evidence for a jury to find that his demotion was in retaliation for protected First Amendment activities.
• Nekolny v. Painter
  653 F.2d 1164· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 108×
  The court held that the trial court properly allocated the burden of proof using the Mount Healthy standard and that an agent's statements concerning employment matters are admissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D). However, damages for emotional distress were revers
• Gagne v. Maher
  594 F.2d 336· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-09 ·cited 108×
  The court held that attorneys' fees are awardable under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 even when a case settles, provided a substantial constitutional claim is present, and that such awards against a state are not barred by the Eleventh Amendment when they ar
• Fulford v. Klein
  529 F.2d 377· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-25 ·cited 108×
• Apton v. Jerry V. Wilson (Chief of Police)
  506 F.2d 83· D.C. Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 108×
• Carter v. Carlson
  447 F.2d 358· D.C. Cir.· 1971-07-23 ·cited 108×
  The court held that supervisory officials are not absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the District of Columbia should share liability for police misconduct.
• Miener v. State OF Mo.
  673 F.2d 969· 8th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 107×
  The court held that a private cause of action for damages exists under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, but not generally under the Education Act, and remanded for further consideration of claims under Section 1983.
• Wilson v. Taylor
  658 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 107×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the true reason for the plaintiff's discharge, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
• Selene Weise v. Syracuse Univ.
  522 F.2d 397· 2d Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 107×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and § 1985(3) without a hearing on state action and conspiracy allegations, and that Title VII claims were improperly dismissed as untimely. The court reversed and remanded for further procee
• Rhem v. Malcolm
  507 F.2d 333· 2d Cir.· 1974-11-08 ·cited 107×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings that conditions at the Tombs violated the constitutional rights of pre-trial detainees but remanded for further consideration of the equitable relief ordered.
• Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Members OF the Bridgeport Civil Serv. Comm'n
  482 F.2d 1333· 2d Cir.· 1973-06-28 ·cited 107×
  The court held that while hiring quotas were permissible to remedy past discrimination in police examinations, quotas for promotions above the rank of patrolman constituted an abuse of discretion.
• Toussaint v. McCARTHY
  801 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the district court assumed too much control over prison affairs, requiring modification of the permanent injunction to ensure it is no broader than necessary to remedy constitutional violations.
• Wilson v. Beebe
  770 F.2d 578· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 105×
  Officer Beebe is protected by official immunity under Michigan law because his actions during the arrest were discretionary.
• Gregory v. Mitchell
  634 F.2d 199· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 105×
  The court held that shareholders lack standing to sue for corporate injuries, pendent jurisdiction was properly declined, leave to amend was untimely, and claims against the FDIC and United States were correctly dismissed.
• Furtado v. Bishop
  604 F.2d 80· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-26 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the admission of an attorney's affidavit under Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) was proper, despite issues with pretrial notice and the judge's reasoning, because sufficient indicia of trustworthiness existed and the defendants were not prejudiced.
• Bogard v. Cook
  586 F.2d 399· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 105×
  The court held that prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity and can only be held liable for damages upon a showing of misconduct greater than ordinary negligence. The record supported the trial court's directed verdict for the top prison officials.
• Kletschka v. Driver
  411 F.2d 436· 2d Cir.· 1969-04-22 ·cited 105×
  The court held that material issues of fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff's transfer was disciplinary and thus required a hearing under 38 U.S.C. § 4110, and whether his constitutional due process rights were violated. Summary judgment was reversed in part.