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

• Hale v. Henderson
  485 F.2d 266· 6th Cir.· 1973-10-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that discrimination in the selection of a grand jury foreman pro tempore does not warrant quashing an indictment without a showing of prejudice.
• Smith v. Ross
  482 F.2d 33· 6th Cir.· 1973-07-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint, as no violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) or § 1983 was established by the facts found.
• JOY v. Holland Daniels
  479 F.2d 1236· 4th Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 18×
  The court held that tenants in federally subsidized housing have a property interest in continued occupancy, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and cannot be evicted without good cause, even after a lease term expires.
• United States v. Senak
  477 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1973-04-24 ·cited 18×
  The indictment states an offense against the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 242.
• Morrow v. Giles W. Crisler
  479 F.2d 960· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 18×
• Mancuso v. Taft
  476 F.2d 187· 1st Cir.· 1973-03-20 ·cited 18×
  A city charter provision prohibiting classified civil servants from becoming candidates for public office violates the Equal Protection Clause because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.
• Kelm v. Carlson
  473 F.2d 1267· 6th Cir.· 1973-02-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the university's interpretation of its residency rule, requiring a definite employment agreement for reclassification, did not violate equal protection or procedural due process.
• Espinoza v. Rollie R. Rogers
  470 F.2d 1174· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-27 ·cited 18×
  An attorney does not act under color of state law merely by accepting employment as a Colorado Public Defender.
• Johnson v. Fraley
  470 F.2d 179· 4th Cir.· 1972-11-20 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a teacher's claim of deprivation of a liberty interest due to non-renewal of contract, without more, does not implicate constitutional due process protections.
• Wilderman v. Nelson
  467 F.2d 1173· 8th Cir.· 1972-10-04 ·cited 18×
  A probationary state employee dismissed for reasons that may damage their reputation or foreclose future employment opportunities is entitled to a pretermination hearing. Additionally, dismissal in retaliation for exercising constitutionally protected free speech rights requires
• Coopersmith v. Supreme Court
  465 F.2d 993· 10th Cir.· 1972-08-07 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the state courts and bar association are not proper defendants under the Civil Rights Act and that the complaint failed to state a claim.
• Lilly Mae Onie Lee Whitelaw Hilliard v. Williams
  465 F.2d 1212· 6th Cir.· 1972-06-28 ·cited 18×
  A prosecuting attorney is not absolutely immune from civil liability for acts outside his quasi-judicial capacity, such as deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence.
• The Albany Welf. Rights Org. DAY Care Ctr., Inc. v. Schreck
  463 F.2d 620· 2d Cir.· 1972-06-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint sufficiently alleged a claim for relief, stating that plaintiffs had a factual foundation to establish retaliation by defendants.
• Stull v. Sch. Bd. of the W. Beaver Junior-Senior High Sch.
  459 F.2d 339· 3d Cir.· 1972-04-13 ·cited 18×
  A school's hair length regulation is invalid unless the school demonstrates a legitimate interest, such as safety in shop classes, that outweighs the student's liberty interest in personal appearance.
• Johnson v. City OF Cincinnati
  450 F.2d 796· 6th Cir.· 1971-10-12 ·cited 18×
  The enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not preclude an action for employment discrimination based on Sections 1983 and 1985(3).
• Dietemann v. Time, Inc.
  449 F.2d 245· 9th Cir.· 1971-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that clandestine photography and electronic recording of a plaintiff in his home without consent, leading to emotional distress, constitutes an invasion of privacy under California law, and the First Amendment does not insulate the defendant from liability for such
• Accardi v. United States
  435 F.2d 1239· 3d Cir.· 1970-12-28 ·cited 18×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, holding that while the appellant's insanity might toll the New Jersey statute of limitations for Section 1983 claims, the United States is not a 'person' under Section 1983, and other claims were barred by statutes of limitations
• Hildrie H. Tolbert v. Eyman
  434 F.2d 625· 9th Cir.· 1970-11-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a prisoner's allegations of being denied necessary medication by prison authorities, despite medical need, state a viable claim under the Civil Rights Act.
• McMILLAN v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the State OF NEW York
  430 F.2d 1145· 2d Cir.· 1970-08-03 ·cited 18×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  The court held that the claims regarding the $2000 limit on state assistance for private education of handicapped children were sufficiently substantial to require a three-judge court.
• United States ex rel. Robert R. Hyde v. McGINNIS
  429 F.2d 864· 2d Cir.· 1970-06-19 ·cited 18×
• ROY v. Louie L. Wainwright
  418 F.2d 231· 5th Cir.· 1969-11-12 ·cited 18×
  Federal courts will not interfere with state prison administration unless there is a clear abuse of discretion regarding prisoner treatment.
• Mrs. Ernestine Walton v. The Nashville
  401 F.2d 137· 8th Cir.· 1968-09-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the non-reemployment of teachers was not based on racial discrimination, but rather on failure to comply with reasonable procedures or lack of superior qualifications.
• Thornton v. Buchmann
  392 F.2d 870· 7th Cir.· 1968-02-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a police officer's good faith belief in the validity of a search warrant is not a defense to a false arrest claim when the warrant is void on its face.
• Jones v. Bombeck
  375 F.2d 737· 3d Cir.· 1967-03-27 ·cited 18×
  The court held that entrapment does not constitute a constitutional violation under the Civil Rights Act, and the action was barred by the statute of limitations.
• Commonwealth OF Pa. v. Revelle W. Brown
  373 F.2d 771· 3d Cir.· 1967-02-28 ·cited 18×
  The majority reversed the district court's finding that the Pennsylvania Public Accommodations Act applied to Girard College, concluding that Pennsylvania courts had implicitly decided the Act did not apply.
• Stevens v. Frick
  372 F.2d 378· 2d Cir.· 1967-02-01 ·cited 18×
  The federal anti-injunction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, precludes federal courts from enjoining state court proceedings unless an exception applies, and no exception was demonstrated here.
• Sunflower Cnty. Colored Baptist Ass'n v. Trs. of Indianola Mun. Separate Sch. Dist.
  369 F.2d 795· 5th Cir.· 1966-12-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the allegations in the removal petition were insufficient to meet the conditions for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443, as the eminent domain proceedings did not present a situation where federal rights would inevitably be denied.
• Wallach v. City OF Pagedale
  359 F.2d 57· 8th Cir.· 1966-04-01 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted under federal law, both for non-compliance with pleading rules and for lack of a valid cause of action against the defendants.
• Pierson v. RAY
  352 F.2d 213· 5th Cir.· 1965-10-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that police officers are not immune from liability under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 for actions taken under color of law, but are immune from common-law false imprisonment claims if acting under a statute they reasonably believed valid. The court also held that a plaintiff
• Phillips v. Nash
  311 F.2d 513· 7th Cir.· 1962-12-28 ·cited 18×
  State's Attorneys are immune from suit under the federal Civil Rights Act for actions taken in connection with official prosecutions.
• Norwood v. Parenteau
  228 F.2d 148· 8th Cir.· 1955-12-28 ·cited 18×
  Federal district courts lack jurisdiction to hear appeals from state supreme court decisions or to enjoin state court proceedings, except in limited circumstances not present here.
• Deshawn Gervin v. Florence
  139 F.4th 1236· 11th Cir.· 2025-06-09 ·cited 17×
  Deshawn Gervin sued two Georgia probation officers under federal civil rights law, alleging they violated his Fourth Amendment rights by recklessly making false statements to obtain a warrant and pursue a probation revocation against him when the only condition of his probation—t
• Resnick v. KrunchCash, LLC
  34 F.4th 1028· 11th Cir.· 2022-05-20 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' due process claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as the claim was not so insubstantial or frivolous as to strip the court of its power to adjudicate.
• Del Castillo v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Health
  26 F.4th 1214· 11th Cir.· 2022-02-18 ·cited 17×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that Florida's Dietetics and Nutrition Practice Act, as applied to the plaintiff, did not violate her First Amendment free speech rights because it regulated professional conduct with only an incidental effect on speech, and this reasoning from Locke v.
• Harbourside Place, LLc v. Town of Jupiter
  958 F.3d 1308· 11th Cir.· 2020-05-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a likelihood of success on its claims that it qualifies as an outdoor venue and that the challenged sections of the Jupiter Code
• Ricci v. DeSTEFANO
  2d Cir.· 2009-06-29 ·cited 17×
  The Court held that discarding test results due to potential disparate impact on minority firefighters violates Title VII unless the employer has a strong basis in evidence to believe it would face disparate-impact liability had it not discarded the results.
• WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City OF Coral Springs
  885 So. 2d 912· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-29 ·cited 17×
  WCI Communities challenged a nine-month temporary moratorium on multi-family development applications enacted by the City of Coral Springs, arguing it violated procedural and substantive due process rights and constituted a regulatory taking. The court affirmed the trial court's
• Mailly v. Ken Jenne as Sheriff of Broward Cnty.
  867 So. 2d 1250· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-03-17 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the officers had probable cause to arrest the appellants for violating section 796.07(2)(g), Florida Statutes, which serves as a complete bar to their false arrest claims.
• Ondrey v. Patterson
  884 So. 2d 50· Fla. 2d DCA· 2004-02-27 ·cited 17×
  A corrections officer sought immunity from a wrongful death lawsuit arising from an inmate's suicide in jail custody. The court held that disputed factual evidence about whether the officer disregarded the inmate's known suicide risk precluded summary judgment on both sovereign i
• Broward Gardens Tenants Ass'n v. United States Env't Prot. Agency
  311 F.3d 1066· 11th Cir.· 2002-11-05 ·cited 17×
  Broward Gardens Tenants Association and residents sued the EPA, HUD, and the City of Fort Lauderdale challenging the adequacy of the cleanup plan for the Wingate Superfund Site, alleging that the site's proximity to their housing complex—which was 99% African-American—exposed the
• Maldonado v. Anne Josey
  975 F.2d 727· 10th Cir.· 1992-09-16 ·cited 17×
  The court held that compulsory school attendance does not create a constitutional duty for the state to protect schoolchildren from harm, distinguishing it from other custodial situations.
• Corder v. Gates
  947 F.2d 374· 9th Cir.· 1991-10-16 ·cited 17×
  A district court may not reduce an attorney's fee award simply because the plaintiff did not prevail against all named defendants when the claims are related and the plaintiff achieved substantial relief.
• Int'l Soc'y FOR Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. LEE
  925 F.2d 576· 2d Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 17×
  The court denied rehearing en banc.
• Smith v. Freeman
  921 F.2d 1120· 10th Cir.· 1990-12-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that a district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding a reduced hourly rate for attorney driving time and denying an increase in the lodestar for delay or risk of nonpayment, but did err by failing to consider hours spent on a reply brief.
• Charles v. Scotty Baesler
  910 F.2d 1349· 6th Cir.· 1990-08-14 ·cited 17×
  Substantive due process does not protect ordinary state-created contract rights, and a simple breach of contract by a government entity does not violate the Contracts Clause if state remedies remain available.
• Williams v. Roberts
  904 F.2d 634· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-28 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination for writing editorials and a letter constituted a violation of her First Amendment free speech rights, and that the award of attorney's fees was proper.
• Conlin v. Blanchard
  890 F.2d 811· 6th Cir.· 1989-11-27 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the statute of limitations barred claims for promotions denied outside the limitations period, and that the affirmative action plan's constitutionality required further factual development regarding its predicate and tailoring.
• Free v. Robert C. Granger, M.D.
  887 F.2d 1552· 11th Cir.· 1989-11-14 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims and pendent state law claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, and that the county and sheriffs were not liable.
• Branch v. Lt. Randall A. Martin
  886 F.2d 1043· 8th Cir.· 1989-10-04 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district court failed to conduct the required de novo review of the magistrate's findings because it did not review the evidentiary hearing transcript or tape recording.
• NIX v. Norman
  879 F.2d 429· 8th Cir.· 1989-07-19 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars monetary damages against state officials in their official capacity, but prospective injunctive relief is permissible. The complaint did not clearly state a claim against the defendant in his individual capacity.