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

• McKINNON v. City OF Berwyn
  750 F.2d 1383· 7th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the district judge erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the City of Berwyn due to a procedural defect and that the plaintiff should have been offered a new trial instead of a remittitur on punitive damages against Montoro. The court also
• Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home
  692 F.2d 1321· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-06 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a claim of negligent wrongful death against a nursing home does not present a substantial federal question under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore, the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the § 1983 claim and any pendent state law claims.
• Duncan
  657 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 87×
  The court held that Georgia's special election statute requires a popular election for a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protects against state officials' actions that seriously undermine the fairness of the electoral process.
• Gurule v. Wilson
  635 F.2d 782· 10th Cir.· 1980-12-01 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a judgment is not final until attorneys fees are addressed, making the second amended judgment the final appealable order. The court also reinstated class certification and affirmed the order for defendants to comply with their own regulations.
• Taylor v. M. M. (Hoot) Gibson
  529 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-01 ·cited 87×
  A pro se prisoner's civil rights complaint, even if alleging facts that seem unlikely, should not be dismissed under the in forma pauperis statute unless it appears beyond doubt that the prisoner could prove no set of facts entitling him to relief.
• Roberts v. Columbus Williams
  456 F.2d 819· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-01 ·cited 87×
  The court affirmed the judgment based on a pendent state tort claim, modifying its opinion to remove reliance on the Eighth Amendment.
• Popham v. City OF Kennesaw
  820 F.2d 1570· 11th Cir.· 1987-07-15 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court properly interpreted the jury's inconsistent answers to special interrogatories, finding that the jury did not intend for qualified immunity to apply to the excessive force claim, and thus upheld the judgment for the plaintiff. The court als
• Hortencia Bohen v. City OF E. Chicago
  799 F.2d 1180· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-28 ·cited 86×
  A city's deliberate failure to respond to complaints of sexual harassment against a female employee, while responding to other forms of misconduct, constitutes intentional discrimination violating the Equal Protection Clause.
• Wilson v. Taylor
  733 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 86×
  The court held that dating is a constitutionally protected association under the First Amendment and that the award of $100,000 for procedural due process violations was grossly excessive.
• Oburn v. Shapp
  521 F.2d 142· 3d Cir.· 1975-08-04 ·cited 86×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction sought by white applicants challenging the Pennsylvania State Police's minority hiring goals.
• DeMATTEIS v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  511 F.2d 306· 2d Cir.· 1975-02-06 ·cited 86×
  The limitations period for a Title VII claim begins to run upon receipt of the EEOC's dismissal notice, not a subsequent 'Notice of Right to Sue.' A white person has standing under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 to sue for injuries sustained while vindicating the rights of minorities.
• Sands v. Louie L. Wainwright
  491 F.2d 417· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-26 ·cited 86×
• Hiram B. ELY v. Velde
  451 F.2d 1130· 4th Cir.· 1971-11-08 ·cited 86×
  The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) is required to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) when approving grants under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, as these statutes do not irre
• Echols v. Lawton
  913 F.3d 1313· 11th Cir.· 2019-01-25 ·cited 85×
  Although the plaintiff stated a valid claim for First Amendment retaliation based on defamation, the district attorney is entitled to qualified immunity because the right was not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.
• Augustin J. SAN Filippo v. U.S. Tr. Co. OF NEW York, Inc.
  737 F.2d 246· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-14 ·cited 85×
  The court held that denial of summary judgment based on an immunity defense is appealable under the collateral final order doctrine, but the claim of absolute immunity for conspiracy to give false testimony was rejected.
• Jackson v. City OF Joliet
  715 F.2d 1200· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-23 ·cited 85×
  A negligent failure by state officers to save accident victims does not constitute a deprivation of life without due process of law actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Morrison v. Wash. Cnty.
  700 F.2d 678· 11th Cir.· 1983-03-17 ·cited 85×
  The court held that summary judgment was improperly granted for the hospital, doctor, county, commissioners, and sheriff, as genuine issues of material fact remained regarding their liability under federal and state law. The exclusion of expert testimony was also deemed erroneous
• Landrigan v. City OF Warwick
  628 F.2d 736· 1st Cir.· 1980-08-27 ·cited 85×
  The court held that a § 1983 claim for false arrest must be stayed pending resolution of the related state criminal charge, and that municipalities cannot be held liable under § 1983 solely on a respondeat superior theory.
• Glasson v. City OF Louisville
  518 F.2d 899· 6th Cir.· 1975-06-13 ·cited 85×
  Police officers are liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for destroying a peaceful protestor's sign, as the action was unreasonable and violated First Amendment rights, and the 'good faith' defense does not apply when officers knew or should have known the activity was protected.
• Johnson v. City of Atlanta
  107 F.4th 1292· 11th Cir.· 2024-07-12 ·cited 84×
  The court held that video evidence central to the claims and undisputed in authenticity can be considered under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, even if not mentioned in the complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal of claims based on the video evidence showing reasonab
• Stephens v. Geoghegan
  702 So. 2d 517· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-10-17 ·cited 84×
  Police officers Stephens, Upman, and Worlds challenged a circuit court's denial of their motions for summary judgment based on immunity claims in a suit by retired officer Geoghegan, who was discharged after an officer-involved shooting but later reinstated through arbitration. T
• Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio
  847 F.2d 642· 10th Cir.· 1988-05-24 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the district court applied the wrong standard in denying summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds and that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of clearly established law violations or unconstitutional motive.
• Brown v. Brienen
  722 F.2d 360· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 84×
  The due process clause does not require more than a post-deprivation state lawsuit for breach of contract involving a denial of accrued compensatory time off.
• Languirand v. Hayden
  717 F.2d 220· 5th Cir.· 1983-10-17 ·cited 84×
• Bills v. Murray Henderson
  631 F.2d 1287· 6th Cir.· 1980-10-01 ·cited 84×
• Briley v. State OF Cal.
  564 F.2d 849· 9th Cir.· 1977-10-19 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the statute of limitations for the § 1983 claim was tolled until the plaintiff discovered the alleged fraud, and that prosecutorial immunity did not apply if the judge lacked statutory authority for the castration order. The § 1985(3) claim was properly dismis
• Johnson v. Warden Noah Alldredge and Corrections Officer Cronrath
  488 F.2d 820· 3d Cir.· 1973-12-12 ·cited 84×
  Federal executive officers are immune from damage liability for actions taken within the outer perimeter of their duties, even if those actions violate constitutional rights, unless a statute expressly abrogates such immunity.
• Chambers v. The Hendersonville City Bd. OF Educ.
  364 F.2d 189· 4th Cir.· 1966-06-06 ·cited 84×
  The dissenting judge believes the District Court's findings were not clearly erroneous and its decree should be affirmed.
• Powell v. Workmen's Comp. Bd. OF the State OF NEW York
  327 F.2d 131· 2d Cir.· 1964-01-23 ·cited 84×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under the Civil Rights Statutes for conspiracy and that his constitutional challenge to a state statute presented an insubstantial federal question, warranting dismissal.
• Hoever v. Marks
  993 F.3d 1353· 11th Cir.· 2021-04-09 ·cited 83×
  Conraad Hoever, an incarcerated prisoner, sued correctional officers for First Amendment retaliation after they threatened him for filing grievances, and a jury found in his favor but awarded only nominal damages because the Eleventh Circuit's prior precedent barred punitive dama
• Robins v. Harum
  773 F.2d 1004· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 83×
  The court held that an excessive use of force claim by law enforcement officers during the post-arrest transport of an arrestee is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a Fourth Amendment violation, and the Parratt analysis does not apply to such claims.
• Hardy W. Ryland and Alma Odessa Ryland v. Shapiro
  708 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 83×
  The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under section 1983 for deprivation of their constitutional right of access to the courts and that prosecutors were not entitled to absolute immunity for actions outside their quasi-judicial role.
• Richardson v. Les Fleming
  651 F.2d 366· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-22 ·cited 83×
  A retained attorney can be liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if they conspire with state officials, even if the officials are immune, and exhaustion of state remedies is required if the § 1983 claim challenges the validity of confinement.
• Benny B. Barrett v. Thomas
  649 F.2d 1193· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-10 ·cited 83×
  The court's opinion, which this judge concurs with, holds that a local government entity is liable under § 1983 when its official policy or custom inflicts injury, not solely for the acts of its employees or agents.
• Joannie Allen Dumas v. Town OF Mount Vernon
  612 F.2d 974· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-03 ·cited 83×
  The court held that claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985(3), and 1986 were time-barred, and the Town of Mount Vernon was not an 'employer' under Title VII. However, the Title VII claim against the Personnel Board was improperly dismissed.
• McCLELLAND v. Facteau
  610 F.2d 693· 10th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 83×
  Summary judgment for police chiefs on failure to train/supervise claims was inappropriate because a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether they had sufficient notice of prior misconduct and failed to act.
• Buise v. Hudkins
  584 F.2d 223· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-26 ·cited 83×
  A prisoner's transfer in retaliation for exercising constitutionally protected rights, such as assisting other inmates with legal matters or requesting improved conditions, is actionable under Section 1983, even if the transfer could have been made for other reasons.
• Hatfield v. Bailleaux
  290 F.2d 632· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-11 ·cited 83×
  The court held that prison regulations limiting inmate access to legal materials and research did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause by denying reasonable access to the courts, as the restrictions were not absolute and inmates had sufficient opportunity to
• Lohorn v. Michal
  913 F.2d 327· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-30 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment based solely on the statutory label of 'policymaking position' without evidence of the actual duties and the necessity of party affiliation for effective performance.
• Spears v. O.L. McCOTTER
  766 F.2d 179· 5th Cir.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 82×
  A magistrate may conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine the factual basis of a prisoner's claims, even if the prisoner demands a jury trial, to ascertain if the claims are frivolous or lack legal merit.
• Arline M. Soderbeck v. Burnett Cnty.
  752 F.2d 285· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-04 ·cited 82×
  The court held that a jury could find a public employee was wrongfully terminated for political reasons, but punitive damages require a showing of actual knowledge of violating rights, not just reckless indifference. The court also found the county could be liable for its own pol
• Bilbrey v. Garland Brown
  738 F.2d 1462· 9th Cir.· 1984-08-02 ·cited 82×
  The court held that settled law did not exist regarding the application of the Fourth Amendment to school searches at the time of the incident, and the district court erred in submitting the good faith immunity question to the jury.
• Burtnieks v. The City OF NEW York
  716 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the existence of an emergency and the impracticality of a pre-deprivation hearing were material facts that were contested and required further factual development.
• NEW York State Ass'n FOR Retarded Child., Inc. v. Carey
  711 F.2d 1136· 2d Cir.· 1983-06-15 ·cited 82×
  The concurring judge agrees with the majority opinion but expresses reservations about the hourly rate and bonus factor awarded to counsel.
• Miller v. City OF Mission
  705 F.2d 368· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the post-termination hearing was constitutionally deficient due to bias and lack of notice, and that the jury's finding of a liberty interest deprivation was supported by evidence of public dissemination of stigmatizing reasons for termination. However, the aw
• Espanola WAY Corp. v. Murray Meyerson
  690 F.2d 827· 11th Cir.· 1982-11-01 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, as the complaint stated a § 1983 claim and the commissioners' actions may not have been legislative, and qualified immunity issues required further factual development.
• Rogin v. Bensalem Twp. & Stephen J. Kelly
  616 F.2d 680· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the developer's cross-claim failed to state a cause of action under federal law, affirming the district court's dismissal, but found the case was not moot.
• Bryan v. Jones
  530 F.2d 1210· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-30 ·cited 82×
• Morris v. Travisono
  528 F.2d 856· 1st Cir.· 1976-01-22 ·cited 82×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the defendants' failure to properly object to jury instructions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 51 precluded appellate review of the substantive legal issues.
• Mr. and Mrs. Ardmore Canton v. Spokane Sch. Dist. #81
  498 F.2d 840· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on abstention and failure to exhaust state remedies, as the federal claims were not adequately addressed by state law or administrative processes.