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

• Clovis Carl Green, Jr. v. White
  693 F.2d 45· 8th Cir.· 1982-11-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a hearing on a summary judgment motion held less than 10 days after filing does not constitute reversible error if the non-moving party did not object and was not prejudiced. Furthermore, the court held that under the objective standard for qualified immunity
• Barrett v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  689 F.2d 498· 4th Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 24×
  A Virginia statute prohibiting prisoners from legally changing their names violates the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because it is an overly broad restriction on religious expression.
• Bishop v. Comm. ON Prof'l Ethics & Conduct OF the Iowa State BAR Ass'n & its Chairman
  686 F.2d 1278· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's individual claims were moot due to the revocation of his law license, and the class action was improperly certified because the plaintiff was not an adequate representative. Therefore, the case must be dismissed.
• Courtland Pitts v. Vaughn
  679 F.2d 311· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-26 ·cited 24×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  A non-lawyer, pro se litigant is not entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• NEW England Accessories Trade Ass'n, Inc. v. City OF Nashua
  679 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that neither the City of Nashua's drug paraphernalia ordinance nor New Hampshire's drug paraphernalia statute are unconstitutionally vague or overbroad.
• Hudson v. Robinson
  678 F.2d 462· 3d Cir.· 1982-05-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an unconstitutional denial of access to the courts, and that certain issues were moot due to voluntary changes made by the defendants.
• Boston Chapter v. Beecher
  679 F.2d 965· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-11 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had the power to modify prior consent decrees to prevent massive layoffs from undoing affirmative action progress, even if it superseded a state seniority statute.
• Heritage Farms, Inc. v. Solebury Twp.
  671 F.2d 743· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-10 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in abstaining from exercising jurisdiction, as the case did not present unsettled state law questions or important state policies threatened by federal adjudication.
• Local Div. 732 v. Metro. Atlanta Rapid Transit Auth.
  667 F.2d 1327· 11th Cir.· 1982-01-29 ·cited 24×
  The panel majority incorrectly held that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over suits to enforce labor protective agreements under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Johnson v. The City OF Opelousas
  658 F.2d 1065· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Opelousas juvenile curfew ordinance is unconstitutionally overbroad because it sweeps within its ambit innocent activities protected by minors' constitutional rights, and less drastic means exist to achieve the city's goals. The court reversed the district
• Tandy Richardson, Jr. v. The City OF Indianapolis
  658 F.2d 494· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-25 ·cited 24×
• Mitchum v. Purvis
  650 F.2d 647· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prisoner's section 1983 action cannot be summarily dismissed for docket control or to discourage suits, even if the prisoner has been transferred from the facility where the alleged violations occurred.
• Flint v. Haynes
  651 F.2d 970· 4th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 24×
  A district court may assess costs against civil rights litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, as authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e).
• Major v. Ned Benton
  647 F.2d 110· 10th Cir.· 1981-04-13 ·cited 24×
  A death resulting from the negligent action of a state official does not, in itself, constitute a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and therefore does not support a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Rev. Frank D. Lovell v. Linwood Snow
  637 F.2d 170· 1st Cir.· 1981-03-17 ·cited 24×
  Pro se plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Randall v. Wyrick
  642 F.2d 304· 8th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a preliminary injunction for alleged inadequate medical treatment is affirmed because the inmate failed to demonstrate deliberate indifference to serious medical needs or probable success on the merits.
• Young v. Kenley
  641 F.2d 192· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-23 ·cited 24×
  A plaintiff who achieves objectives through settlement, even without a judicial determination of rights, is a prevailing party entitled to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Doyle Dewayne Courtney v. Reeves
  635 F.2d 326· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's civil rights claims without proper consideration of the factual allegations and procedural requirements, particularly regarding excessive force and conspiracy claims.
• MAY v. Enomoto
  633 F.2d 164· 9th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the statute of limitations was tolled and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, thus affirming the directed verdict.
• MacLin v. Deputy Sheriff Paulson
  627 F.2d 83· 7th Cir.· 1980-08-07 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints against the arresting officers and Police Chief Boone, as the allegations stated actionable claims under federal civil rights law.
• Broughton v. Cutter Labs.
  622 F.2d 458· 9th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the prisoner's complaint, as currently stated, did not provide enough information to determine if it alleged deliberate indifference to serious medical needs, and thus should be remanded for an opportunity to amend.
• Eldred S. Wallace and Jeannie R. Wallace v. King
  626 F.2d 1157· 4th Cir.· 1980-07-01 ·cited 24×
  A search warrant is not constitutionally required to search a third person's premises for a suspect named in a valid arrest warrant, provided officers have a reasonable belief the suspect is present.
• Miller v. Smith
  615 F.2d 1037· 5th Cir.· 1980-04-21 ·cited 24×
  The court held that federal courts should honor state statutes of limitations, including their tolling provisions, unless they are inconsistent with federal law.
• Brown v. Nutsch
  619 F.2d 758· 8th Cir.· 1980-04-18 ·cited 24×
  Section 1983 provides a remedy for improper extradition in violation of the extradition clause and statute, but only if the alleged violations also breach minimal constitutional or statutory requirements.
• Adolph Lyons v. City OF LOS Angeles
  615 F.2d 1243· 9th Cir.· 1980-03-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff had standing to challenge the police department's use of strangleholds, distinguishing the case from prior Supreme Court precedent that required stricter standing requirements for structural injunctions.
• McMANAMA v. Lukhard
  616 F.2d 727· 4th Cir.· 1980-02-28 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the award of attorneys' fees was proper, but erred in compelling an interrogatory regarding legal aid eligibility, though this error was harmless.
• Nanette Griffeth v. Detrich
  603 F.2d 118· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 24×
• Hurney v. Carver
  602 F.2d 993· 1st Cir.· 1979-07-05 ·cited 24×
  A prisoner's pro se complaint alleging denial of due process for denied witness requests at disciplinary hearings is insufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless it alleges the denial was for reasons unrelated to institutional security or correctional goals and con
• Cleamtee Garner v. Memphis Police Dep't
  600 F.2d 52· 6th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 24×
  The court held that individual officers are immune from liability due to good faith reliance on existing Tennessee law, but the city may be liable under Monell for constitutional violations resulting from its policy or custom.
• Webster v. Redmond
  599 F.2d 793· 7th Cir.· 1979-05-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not possess a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest in promotion to principal, and thus was not denied due process. The court also affirmed the dismissal of racial discrimination claims.
• Campbell v. Gerrans
  592 F.2d 1054· 9th Cir.· 1979-03-07 ·cited 24×
  A trial court abuses its discretion by dismissing a civil case solely because plaintiffs invoked the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to specific interrogatories, as this constitutes a penalty for silence.
• Nydia Maria Diaz-Buxo v. Hon. Jose T. Trias Monge
  593 F.2d 153· 1st Cir.· 1979-02-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint on res judicata grounds and in refusing to enter default judgments against the defendants.
• McBRIDE v. Soos
  594 F.2d 610· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-22 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a complaint alleging abuse of the extradition power by noncompliance with applicable federal and state law states a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Preston v. Thompson
  589 F.2d 300· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-15 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by ordering immediate implementation of specific shower and recreation requirements in the context of a dangerous post-riot prison environment.
• Arsberry v. Allyn R. Sielaff
  586 F.2d 37· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-01 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether plaintiffs' segregation infringed upon state-created liberty interests triggering procedural due process protections.
• Johnson v. Kelly
  583 F.2d 1242· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Younger abstention doctrine should not be extended to cases where the state is not a party to the pending state proceedings.
• DE LA Cruz v. Tormey
  582 F.2d 45· 9th Cir.· 1978-09-13 ·cited 24×
  A claim for sex discrimination requires either facial discrimination or discriminatory effects; allegations of discriminatory intent alone are insufficient if the conduct is otherwise gender-neutral.
• Kurek v. Pleasure Driveway & Park Dist. OF Peoria
  583 F.2d 378· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-11 ·cited 24×
  The court reinstated its prior judgment on antitrust claims and reversed the dismissal of a civil rights claim against the Park District, remanding for further proceedings.
• Hastings v. Bonner
  578 F.2d 136· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-14 ·cited 24×
• Schachter v. Whalen
  581 F.2d 35· 2d Cir.· 1978-07-19 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and thus affirmed the dismissal.
• Morales v. Vega
  579 F.2d 677· 1st Cir.· 1978-07-06 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the grievance committee members and that the case should be remanded to consider the applicability of the Puerto Rican tolling statute for the claims against the supervisory defendants.
• Shepherd v. Ciro Trevino
  575 F.2d 1110· 5th Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 24×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  A state may constitutionally create a system for reenfranchising convicted felons that distinguishes between state and federal probationers, provided the classification bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest.
• Rohler v. TRW, Inc.
  576 F.2d 1260· 7th Cir.· 1978-05-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by dismissing the complaint without granting leave to amend, as the plaintiff should have been given an opportunity to correct jurisdictional pleading defects.
• Shields v. Jackson
  570 F.2d 284· 8th Cir.· 1978-02-16 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the trial court should have appointed counsel for the indigent plaintiff, whose complaint stated a cause of action, to advance the proper administration of justice.
• Ellentuck v. Klein
  570 F.2d 414· 2d Cir.· 1978-01-04 ·cited 24×
  Plaintiffs' claims challenging a building permit, variance, and state court decisions on federal civil rights grounds were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel because the New York Court of Appeals, applying the Kovarsky doctrine, had jurisdiction under CPLR § 103(c) to
• Schmidt v. Fremont Cnty. Sch. Dist. NO. 25
  558 F.2d 982· 10th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 24×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that the plaintiff's statements regarding internal school operations were not protected by the First Amendment and that his termination was not retaliatory, with the primary reason being poor school attendance.
• Person v. The Ass'n OF the BAR OF the City OF NEW York
  554 F.2d 534· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-29 ·cited 24×
  The court held that New York Disciplinary Rule 7-109 C, which prohibits attorneys from paying expert witnesses on a contingent fee basis, has a rational basis and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process or equal protection clauses.
• Davids v. Stan Akers
  549 F.2d 120· 9th Cir.· 1977-01-13 ·cited 24×
  Federal courts cannot intervene in state legislative decisions regarding committee appointments, as this infringes upon the state legislature's constitutional right to determine its own rules and procedures.
• Meyer v. Frank
  550 F.2d 726· 2d Cir.· 1977-01-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the three-year New York statute of limitations for civil rights actions should not be tolled during the period the plaintiff pursued a remedy in state courts.