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

• Banas v. Dempsey
  742 F.2d 277· 6th Cir.· 1984-08-22 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the cases on mootness and Eleventh Amendment grounds, and that Quern-type notice relief is permissible ancillary relief to prospective injunctions.
• Diggs v. Superintendent Edmond Lyons
  741 F.2d 577· 3d Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The majority opinion creates a circuit split by holding that in civil cases, the admission of prior felony convictions for impeachment of any witness is mandatory, outside the discretion of Rule 403.
• Stone v. City OF Chicago
  738 F.2d 896· 7th Cir.· 1984-07-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that jury verdicts were not inconsistent and that the jury instruction regarding the burden of proof for defenses was not erroneous.
• Kollsman v. City OF LOS Angeles
  737 F.2d 830· 9th Cir.· 1984-07-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court should have abstained from deciding state law claims concerning land use planning regulations, as these issues were complex, uncertain, and sensitive areas of social policy best left to state courts.
• Agromayor v. Severo Colberg
  738 F.2d 55· 1st Cir.· 1984-07-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the denial of a motion to dismiss based on legislative immunity is immediately appealable, and that the defendant legislator is entitled to absolute legislative immunity for the decision not to hire the plaintiff as a legislative press officer.
• Lewis v. Blackburn
  734 F.2d 1000· 4th Cir.· 1984-05-17 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the district court's judgment, finding that the employee's complaints were based on personal self-interest rather than matters of public concern, and thus not protected by the First Amendment.
• Almendral v. NEW York State Off. OF Mental Health
  743 F.2d 963· 2d Cir.· 1984-05-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in refusing to consider post-EEOC filing conduct for Title VII and Section 1981 claims, but correctly dismissed state law claims due to the Eleventh Amendment.
• Giglio v. Dunn
  732 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 16×
  A pre-coercion hearing is not constitutionally required when a post-deprivation remedy, such as an Article 78 proceeding, is available and provides a meaningful opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of a resignation.
• Laureano-Agosto v. Garcia-Caraballo
  731 F.2d 101· 1st Cir.· 1984-04-12 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the appellant's discharge did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment rights because he was an 'at will' employee and the defamatory statements were made after his termination, not in the course of it.
• Roberts v. VAN Buren Pub. Schs.
  731 F.2d 523· 8th Cir.· 1984-03-27 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction, finding that the teachers were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm because reinstatement and backpay would be adequate remedies if they prevailed on the merits.
• Lovell v. Brennan
  728 F.2d 560· 1st Cir.· 1984-02-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying injunctive relief for general population inmates and in finding that the revised protective custody criteria did not unreasonably expose inmates to violence.
• Campbell v. W.R. Bowlin
  724 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1984-02-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a post-judgment motion for attorney's fees is not a Rule 59(e) motion, thus not triggering the need for a new notice of appeal. The court also held that a directed verdict was inappropriate where credibility determinations were necessary.
• Wentz v. Klecker
  721 F.2d 244· 8th Cir.· 1983-11-16 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a state official acting in good faith, based on the advice of counsel, is immune from personal liability for damages related to a due process violation, even if the advice was erroneous.
• Behlar v. Smith
  719 F.2d 950· 8th Cir.· 1983-10-27 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court's findings of sex discrimination were not clearly erroneous, but remanded the issue of harassment damages for further findings.
• Heath v. Cleary
  708 F.2d 1376· 9th Cir.· 1983-06-17 ·cited 16×
  The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite for a § 1983 action, and collateral estoppel does not bar the action because the state court did not decide the substantive issues.
• Wolfel v. Bates
  707 F.2d 932· 6th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prison officials violated an inmate's First Amendment right to petition by disciplining him for a complaint without proving it was false or malicious, and affirmed the award of nominal damages.
• Hornick v. Noyes
  708 F.2d 321· 7th Cir.· 1983-06-03 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of individual defendants for failure to meet statutory notice requirements and affirmed the judgment for the YWCA, finding no violation of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
• Meyerson v. The State OF Ariz.
  709 F.2d 1235· 9th Cir.· 1983-05-09 ·cited 16×
• Battle v. Park Anderson
  708 F.2d 1523· 10th Cir.· 1983-05-06 ·cited 16×
  A court should exercise supervisory power over a prison system until it can assure not only that constitutional violations do not presently exist, but also that there is no reasonable expectation that unconstitutional conditions will recur.
• Micklus v. Greer
  705 F.2d 314· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that res judicata barred the current lawsuit because the claims and parties were sufficiently similar to prior dismissed actions.
• Holt v. Pitts
  702 F.2d 639· 6th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 16×
  A prisoner's constitutional right of access to the courts is satisfied when the state provides adequate legal counsel, even if the prisoner denies access to personal law books.
• Arnie King v. Higgins
  702 F.2d 18· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendant superintendent was not entitled to qualified immunity because he knew or should have known that his failure to investigate the prisoner's due process claims violated clearly established constitutional rights and departmental regulations.
• Chuck Siers v. Mr. J. Morrash (Hosp. Administrator)
  700 F.2d 113· 3d Cir.· 1983-02-16 ·cited 16×
  A magistrate's order denying a motion for appointment of counsel in a civil rights suit is not a final order of the district court and is therefore not directly appealable to the court of appeals.
• Goetz v. Windsor Cent. Sch. Dist.
  698 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff had no protectable property interest in his employment as an at-will employee, but that factual issues regarding the dissemination of stigmatizing information required discovery for his liberty interest claim.
• Lowrie v. Goldenhersh
  716 F.2d 401· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear the plaintiff's general constitutional challenges to the Illinois bar admission rule, but affirmed the district court's dismissal of the claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• LaCarttle Jones v. Franzen
  697 F.2d 801· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing an injunction because the prisoner failed to demonstrate that the prison's copying policy impeded his constitutional right of access to the courts.
• Nat'l Ass'n FOR the Advancement OF Colored People v. The City OF Evergreen
  693 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying injunctive relief despite evidence of past discrimination and remanded for the district court to fashion an appropriate decree.
• Citadel Corp. v. Puerto RICO Hwy. Auth.
  695 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1982-12-22 ·cited 16×
  Damage actions against governmental entities for land use policies are not cognizable in federal court, even if the regulation constitutes an unconstitutional taking.
• Gagnon v. Archibald Ball and Thomas Laplaca
  696 F.2d 17· 2d Cir.· 1982-12-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the officers were not entitled to judgment notwithstanding the verdict because a reasonable jury could find they lacked probable cause to arrest the plaintiff for breach of the peace or carrying a dangerous weapon.
• Barbian v. Constantine Panagis & the City of Milwaukee
  694 F.2d 476· 7th Cir.· 1982-11-30 ·cited 16×
  The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion to interview jurors, holding that the information presented did not establish a sufficient basis to question the verdict's integrity.
• Clark v. Williams
  693 F.2d 381· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-24 ·cited 16×
  A civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is not the proper federal remedy when a prisoner's allegations, if true, would undermine the validity of his confinement; habeas corpus is the sole remedy in such circumstances.
• Williams v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'rs
  689 F.2d 1212· 1st Cir.· 1982-10-25 ·cited 16×
  A state prisoner's claim attacking the constitutionality of his incarceration due to discriminatory jury selection is cognizable only through habeas corpus, not under § 1983, and must first exhaust state remedies.
• Cooper v. Singer
  689 F.2d 929· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-30 ·cited 16×
  A contingent fee agreement does not bar recovery of attorney's fees under § 1988, and the agreed-upon fee does not constitute the maximum allowable fee.
• Fletcher Altman Smith v. Heath
  691 F.2d 220· 6th Cir.· 1982-09-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a supervisory official cannot be held liable under § 1983 for the actions of subordinates unless the supervisor personally participated in or affirmatively authorized the misconduct.
• Flower CAB Co. & Checker Taxi Co., Inc. v. Petitte
  685 F.2d 192· 7th Cir.· 1982-08-04 ·cited 16×
  The court declined to vacate its previously granted stay of a preliminary injunction, finding the appellees' cited cases inapposite.
• Searing v. Hayes
  684 F.2d 694· 10th Cir.· 1982-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that collateral estoppel barred the plaintiffs' civil rights action because they had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the legality of the search warrant in state court, even though they did not receive a Franks evidentiary hearing.
• Edwards v. Ark. Power & Light Co.
  683 F.2d 1149· 8th Cir.· 1982-07-08 ·cited 16×
  The court applies Pullman abstention, finding unsettled state law questions regarding res judicata and bad-faith claims may determine the federal due process claim.
• Hurie Jones v. Orleans Parish Sch. Bd.
  679 F.2d 32· 5th Cir.· 1982-06-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the racial discrimination claims under §§ 1981 and 1983 were time-barred, but the due process claim was not. The Title VII claim was affirmed as the plaintiff failed to prove racial discrimination.
• Meyer v. State
  415 So. 2d 70· Fla. 5th DCA· 1982-06-02 ·cited 16×
  Meyer sought belated appellate review via habeas corpus after his court-appointed public defender failed to timely file his appeal. The court granted the petition but, on the State's motion for rehearing, grappled with whether Polk County v. Dodson undermined the precedent establ
• Benham v. Edwards
  678 F.2d 511· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-27 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes the presumption of continuing dangerousness for insanity acquittees does not violate equal protection and that the issue of state-initiated hearings is moot due to statutory amendment.
• Nilsen v. The City OF Moss Point
  674 F.2d 379· 5th Cir.· 1982-04-26 ·cited 16×
• Pomerantz v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  674 F.2d 1288· 9th Cir.· 1982-04-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that quasi-judicial immunity bars damages claims and that most injunctive claims were moot, but reversed the denial of an injunction for immediate jury list placement, remanding for consideration of the constitutional claim.
• Harris v. Bailey
  675 F.2d 614· 4th Cir.· 1982-04-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the garnishment of Social Security benefits, though settled, presented a justiciable controversy capable of repetition yet evading review, thus reversing the dismissal for mootness. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Attorney General as a party.
• Hillis v. Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
  665 F.2d 547· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court clearly erred in its factual findings regarding the plaintiff's First Amendment claims and that the plaintiff would not have been renewed regardless of any protected activity.
• Seyfried v. Walton
  668 F.2d 214· 3d Cir.· 1981-12-29 ·cited 16×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Action
  A public school superintendent's decision to cancel a school-sponsored dramatic production due to its sexual content does not violate students' First Amendment rights when the play is considered part of the educational curriculum.
• Laurenzo v. Miss. High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc.
  662 F.2d 1117· 5th Cir.· 1981-12-03 ·cited 16×
  The court held that while the complaint alleged sufficient facts to support federal jurisdiction based on family choice and conclusive presumption arguments, the case is now moot because the challenged ineligibility period has expired and the student has likely graduated.
• Wiggins v. NEW Mexico State Supreme Court Clerk
  664 F.2d 812· 10th Cir.· 1981-11-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a prisoner's pro se civil rights complaint alleging constitutional deprivations should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that no relief can be granted.
• Kosikowski v. Bourne
  659 F.2d 105· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Oregon Tort Claims Act's two-year statute of limitations applies to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the plaintiffs' claims were time-barred. The court affirmed the dismissal of the actions.
• Weaver v. Bowers
  657 F.2d 1356· 3d Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the defendants waived their defense of nonretroactivity by failing to raise it timely, but exercised its inherent power to consider the issue due to unusual circumstances and the need for evenhandedness in justice.
• Brache v. Cnty. OF Westchester
  658 F.2d 47· 2d Cir.· 1981-08-18 ·cited 16×
  A district court should not adjudicate the constitutionality of an ordinance as applied to conduct for which a plaintiff has no standing, even if the plaintiff has standing to challenge the ordinance as applied to other conduct.