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

• Postscript Enters., Inc. v. Whaley
  658 F.2d 1249· 8th Cir.· 1981-09-14 ·cited 12×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim
  The court held that the St. Louis ordinance restricting the sale of contraceptives and sex-inciting devices is unconstitutional, violating the right to privacy and due process through vagueness.
• Cohn v. Papke
  655 F.2d 191· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-31 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the admission of evidence regarding the plaintiff's prior sexual experiences and preferences was reversible error because it was irrelevant, impermissible character evidence, and unduly prejudicial.
• Gov't OF the Virgin Islands v. Rasool
  657 F.2d 582· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was admissible because the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment under the precedent of New York v. Belton.
• Callion Robinson v. Moreland
  655 F.2d 887· 8th Cir.· 1981-07-31 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the jury verdict for the plaintiff on the Eighth Amendment claim but reversed the magistrate's reduction of attorney fees, awarding a higher amount.
• Bloomer Shippers Ass'n v. Ill. Cent. Gulf R.R. Co.
  655 F.2d 772· 7th Cir.· 1981-07-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 failed for lack of state action, and claims under the Interstate Commerce Act were barred by res judicata or lacked a private right of action.
• Dasher v. The Supreme Court OF Tex.
  650 F.2d 711· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-16 ·cited 12×
  A federal district court lacks jurisdiction to review a state court's denial of an individual's application for admission to the bar, as such a denial constitutes a judicial decision reviewable only by the U.S. Supreme Court.
• Foley v. The Ala. State BAR
  648 F.2d 355· 5th Cir.· 1981-06-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the state action exemption barred the antitrust claims, but that the First Amendment claims were improperly decided on summary judgment due to unresolved factual issues.
• Bright McCAUSLAND v. Mason Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  649 F.2d 278· 4th Cir.· 1981-05-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that claims under the Reconstruction Civil Rights Acts are subject to the state's personal injury statute of limitations, not the contract statute.
• Burroughs Corp. v. Werner H. Kramarsky
  650 F.2d 1308· 2d Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 12×
  ERISA does not preempt New York's Human Rights Law regarding disability benefits for pregnancy.
• Sisk v. Tex. Parks & Wildlife Dep't
  644 F.2d 1056· 5th Cir.· 1981-05-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the allegations stated a federal question and a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Yellow Springs Exempted Vill. Sch. Dist. Bd. OF Educ. v. Ohio High Sch. Athletic Ass'n
  647 F.2d 651· 6th Cir.· 1981-04-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the OHSAA's rule prohibiting girls from participating in contact sports violates Title IX regulations, but it declined to rule on the constitutionality of the regulation itself. The court reversed the district court's finding that the regulation was unconstitu
• McNEIL v. McDONOUGH
  648 F.2d 178· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-24 ·cited 12×
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove racial discrimination, as the defendants successfully rebutted the prima facie case with legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for their employment decisions.
• Julianna McKENNA and Alice Brown v. Peekskill Hous. Auth.
  647 F.2d 332· 2d Cir.· 1981-04-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the housing authority's rule requiring registration and permission for overnight guests infringed tenants' constitutional rights of association and privacy, and that the damage claims were not moot despite the rule's rescission.
• Lyght v. Ford Motor Co.
  643 F.2d 435· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-09 ·cited 12×
  A settlement with a state civil rights agency, which resulted in a promotion but no back pay, does not preclude an employee from pursuing a Title VII claim for back pay in federal court.
• Johnson v. Parke
  642 F.2d 377· 10th Cir.· 1981-02-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations, if true, state a claim for denial of access to the courts under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the complaint was improperly dismissed as frivolous.
• Zaczek v. Hutto
  642 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the "publishers-only" rule for inmate publications did not violate the First Amendment when justified by security concerns, and that the disciplinary procedures used did not violate due process rights.
• The Flipside v. Vill. OF Hoffman Ests.
  639 F.2d 373· 7th Cir.· 1981-01-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide clear notice of what items are regulated, violating the due process clause.
• Giles M. Lugar v. Edmondson OIL Co., Inc.
  639 F.2d 1058· 4th Cir.· 1981-01-09 ·cited 12×
• Davis v. City OF Abbeville
  633 F.2d 1161· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-08 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the attorney's fees award, finding no abuse of discretion despite the district court's failure to explicitly articulate the Johnson factors, as the record indicated consideration and the award was not palpably unreasonable.
• Tagupa v. Bd. OF Directors
  633 F.2d 1309· 9th Cir.· 1980-12-12 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff in an employment discrimination suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983 must demonstrate they applied for the job as a substantive element of their claim. Failure to do so warrants summary judgment.
• Layne v. Sampley
  627 F.2d 12· 6th Cir.· 1980-08-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence and should not have been set aside, as the officer's actions could be construed as being under color of state law.
• Harmasse LeCLAIR and Elizabeth Le-Clair v. Saunders
  627 F.2d 606· 2d Cir.· 1980-07-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of an equal protection violation based on selective enforcement, as the plaintiffs failed to prove that the selective treatment was based on impermissible considerations or malicious intent.
• Taylor v. Mayone
  626 F.2d 247· 2d Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR § 214(2) applies to federal civil rights suits against sheriffs and their deputies, not the one-year limit of CPLR § 215(1).
• Robert M. v. Benton
  622 F.2d 370· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-23 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it lacked clear jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court's order was not a final judgment, but might have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) if the order is construed as an injunction.
• Davis v. Williams
  617 F.2d 1100· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a municipal ordinance prohibiting conduct "prejudicial to good order" was facially overbroad and vague, violating the First Amendment rights of municipal employees.
• Santos v. Alaska BAR Ass'n & the Justices of the Supreme Court of Alaska
  618 F.2d 575· 9th Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 12×
  Alaska Bar Admission Rule 1-2 does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment for graduates of unaccredited law schools.
• Vasquez v. Patrolman Robert Fleming
  617 F.2d 334· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-13 ·cited 12×
  The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, not the Virgin Islands Code, apply to appeals from the Virgin Islands district courts, meaning attorney fees are not automatically recoverable as costs under local law.
• E & E Hauling, Inc. v. Forest Preserve Dist. OF DU Page Cnty.
  613 F.2d 675· 7th Cir.· 1980-01-22 ·cited 12×
  A party states a federal claim under the Contract Clause when a state or its subdivision enacts a law that impairs contractual obligations by preventing the non-breaching party from obtaining a remedy for breach.
• Lindsey v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univ. Sys. OF Ga.
  607 F.2d 672· 5th Cir.· 1979-11-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the university's nonrenewal of a professor's contract solely due to his distribution of a faculty questionnaire constituted a violation of his First Amendment rights.
• Louise B. v. Aldo Coluatti
  606 F.2d 392· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the confidentiality and procedural due process claims, finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pendent jurisdiction, and that the procedural due process claim was not foreclosed by Arnett v. Kennedy.
• Almon v. Sandlin
  603 F.2d 503· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and was an improper collateral attack on state court judgments.
• Inez Chavez v. The City OF Santa FE Hous. Auth. & Emilia M. Martinez
  606 F.2d 282· 10th Cir.· 1979-09-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that tenants of a housing authority have a protected property interest in continuing to receive housing benefits without unwarranted damage assessments, thus implicating due process protections.
• Burks v. Teasdale
  603 F.2d 59· 8th Cir.· 1979-08-08 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment regarding prison overcrowding and unsanitary conditions, but expressed concerns about the timeline for eliminating double-celling and the permanent allowance of double-celling in smaller cells.
• Berman v. Fla. Med. Ctr., Inc.
  600 F.2d 466· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the hospital's requirement for an AMA-approved residency is reasonable and does not constitute state action or a conspiracy against osteopathic physicians.
• Shands v. Tull
  602 F.2d 1156· 3d Cir.· 1979-07-24 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Social Security Act and its regulations require substantial, not total, compliance from states regarding welfare benefit appeal timelines, and New Jersey's performance met this standard.
• George v. Parratt
  602 F.2d 818· 8th Cir.· 1979-07-11 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court properly abstained under Pullman-type abstention because an unclear question of state law regarding good time credits for inmates sentenced under the Sexual Sociopath Act could resolve the federal constitutional claims.
• Lair v. Fauver
  595 F.2d 911· 3d Cir.· 1979-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court should reconsider the appellant's claim regarding his inter-prison transfer, as a recent state court decision may have created a justifiable expectation of treatment under state law, potentially implicating due process rights.
• Housand v. Maxwell Heiman
  594 F.2d 923· 2d Cir.· 1979-03-20 ·cited 12×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's constitutional claims were properly dismissed for lack of state action or bias, the case should be remanded to allow the plaintiff to amend his complaint to assert diversity jurisdiction.
• Francine Newman v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF NEW York
  594 F.2d 299· 2d Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a tenured teacher denied access to medical reports used to place her on involuntary leave for mental unfitness was denied procedural due process. However, her refusal to submit to a subsequent medical examination precluded claims for damages after that point.
• Brogan v. Wiggins Sch. Dist. and/or Bd. of Educ.
  588 F.2d 409· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court properly granted summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and did not meet the qualifications for the certificate, and claims were barred by the statute of limitations or failure to exhaust
• Litton Indus., Inc. v. Colon
  587 F.2d 70· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-20 ·cited 12×
  The Eleventh Amendment bars a federal contract action against the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and its officials, and the allegations do not support a civil rights claim against the individual defendants.
• McMAHON v. Beard
  583 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1978-11-02 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a pretrial detainee's confinement in a 'strip cell' without clothing for up to 90 days after an attempted suicide, coupled with claims of suboptimal medical care, did not violate his constitutional rights under the circumstances presented.
• Arthur v. Graseck, Jr.
  582 F.2d 203· 2d Cir.· 1978-08-07 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the discharge of an attorney by a private Legal Aid Society, even with some judicial criticism and interaction, does not constitute state action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Bolding v. Austin
  575 F.2d 461· 4th Cir.· 1978-04-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the complaint, which sought to have the federal district court assume supervision of the entire state prison system, failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and should have been dismissed.
• Proctor v. Dr. Flex & Melvin Banks
  567 F.2d 635· 5th Cir.· 1978-02-08 ·cited 12×
  The court dismissed the appeal because the plaintiff failed to apply to the appellate court for leave to proceed in forma pauperis after the district court certified the appeal was not in good faith.
• Int'l Soc'y FOR Krishna Consciousness, Inc. v. Andersen
  569 F.2d 1027· 8th Cir.· 1978-01-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that attorneys' fees should be awarded to a prevailing party under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976 unless unusual circumstances make the award unjust.
• Alford Lee Cunningham v. Jones
  567 F.2d 653· 6th Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 12×
• Leonard v. The City OF Columbus
  565 F.2d 957· 5th Cir.· 1977-10-26 ·cited 12×
• Main Road v. Aytch
  565 F.2d 54· 3d Cir.· 1977-10-14 ·cited 12×
  Prison regulations banning group press conferences are not unconstitutional, but inmates are entitled to a declaratory judgment recognizing the procedural changes achieved through litigation.
• Prentice Robinson, Jr. v. Richardson
  556 F.2d 332· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a state prisoner challenging his conviction based on discriminatory jury selection must first exhaust state remedies via a habeas corpus action, as this claim goes to the validity of the conviction itself.