Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)

246 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Tramel v. Schrader
  505 F.2d 1310· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-06 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a three-judge court was not required and that the Tax Injunction Statute barred federal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' challenge to special street improvement assessments.
• Dorcas Bond and Barbara Baldwin v. Dentzer
  494 F.2d 302· 2d Cir.· 1974-03-13 ·cited 26×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the lower court's decision, finding that wage assignment constitutes state action and violates due process.
• Winters v. Alan D. Miller, M.D.
  446 F.2d 65· 2d Cir.· 1971-05-26 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the appellant's constitutional rights were not violated by fingerprinting and photographing, and that the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants should be affirmed.
• Harlan Clark Brown v. Strickler
  422 F.2d 1000· 6th Cir.· 1970-02-19 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the students' suit sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction, as the complaint adequately alleged state action and a due process violation under the Civil Rights Act.
• Fear v. Commonwealth OF Pa. & R. K. Johnson
  413 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1969-07-10 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a state is not a 'person' under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and that a claim of improper medical care is legally insufficient to establish a denial of federal rights.
• Nicki Arron Bonner v. Mr. Lewis
  857 F.2d 559· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 25×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on the Rehabilitation Act claim and the due process claim, but affirmed summary judgment on the equal protection and Eighth Amendment claims. The dismissal of the Director was affirmed for Section 1983
• Freeman v. Rideout
  808 F.2d 949· 2d Cir.· 1986-12-30 ·cited 25×
  The filing of unfounded charges against a prison inmate does not, per se, constitute a constitutional violation actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, provided that the inmate receives the constitutionally required due process protections at a subsequent disciplinary hearing.
• 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.
• LaFLEUR v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  465 F.2d 1184· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-27 ·cited 24×
  The regulation requiring maternity leave prior to delivery is a permissible exercise of the Board's discretion and does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. However, the post-delivery waiting period lacks a rational basis.
• United States ex rel. Edwin Gockley v. Myers
  450 F.2d 232· 3d Cir.· 1971-09-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his arrest was illegal or that his statements were coerced, and therefore, he was not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
• Fletcher v. Hook
  446 F.2d 14· 3d Cir.· 1971-05-17 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a state prisoner's malpractice claim against his appointed counsel is not cognizable under the Civil Rights Act, and a perjury claim was properly dismissed.
• MacDONALD v. Musick
  425 F.2d 373· 9th Cir.· 1970-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority's approach is unrealistic and would affirm the district court's judgment.
• Rosanna Drollinger and Nathan Drollinger v. Milligan
  552 F.2d 1220· 7th Cir.· 1977-04-04 ·cited 23×
  Rosanna's challenge to probation conditions must be brought as a habeas corpus petition, requiring exhaustion of state remedies, while Nathan's challenge to conditions affecting his family rights is a valid civil rights claim under § 1983.
• Thomas v. Warden Frank J. Pate
  516 F.2d 889· 7th Cir.· 1975-03-25 ·cited 22×
• The Oneida Indian Nation OF NEW York State v. The Cnty. OF Oneida
  464 F.2d 916· 2d Cir.· 1972-07-12 ·cited 22×
  The court should interpret "arising under" jurisdiction broadly for Indian tribes under 28 U.S.C. § 1362, allowing federal court adjudication of treaty-based claims.
• McGUANE v. Chenango Court, Inc.
  431 F.2d 1189· 2d Cir.· 1970-09-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that receipt of federal mortgage insurance does not constitute state action for purposes of the Civil Rights Act.
• Dacey v. N.Y. Cnty. Lawyers' Ass'n
  423 F.2d 188· 2d Cir.· 1969-12-08 ·cited 22×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, agreeing that the Association had probable cause to initiate unauthorized practice proceedings.
• Kadlec v. Ill. Bell Tel. Co.
  407 F.2d 624· 7th Cir.· 1969-02-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the mere filing of regulations or licensing does not convert private action into action under color of state law for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Rivers v. Royster
  360 F.2d 592· 4th Cir.· 1966-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that a prisoner's constitutional rights were abridged by the denial of a newspaper based on race, violating equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Ream v. Handley
  359 F.2d 728· 7th Cir.· 1966-04-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as no genuine federal question or civil rights claim was presented.
• Ortiz v. LaVALLEE
  442 F.2d 912· 2d Cir.· 1971-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that New York's tolling statute for imprisoned persons applies even if they have legal capacity to sue, thus the inmate's civil rights claim was not time-barred.
• Johnson v. Mueller
  415 F.2d 354· 4th Cir.· 1969-08-29 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the pro se plaintiff's complaints for lack of jurisdiction without considering whether they stated a claim under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.
• Miller v. Carson
  563 F.2d 757· 5th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised pendent jurisdiction over state law claims concerning jail conditions, and that the order continuing an injunction was appealable.
• Anderson v. Haas
  341 F.2d 497· 3d Cir.· 1965-02-12 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the legality of an arrest under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is determined by federal constitutional standards, not state law, and that the officers had probable cause to arrest the plaintiff.
• Cannon v. Loyola Univ. OF Chicago
  784 F.2d 777· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that prior dismissals of the plaintiff's suits operated as res judicata, barring the current action against all defendant medical schools.
• Mazanec v. N. Judson-San Pierre Sch. Corp.
  763 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 18×
  The court should affirm the district court's decision to abstain from hearing the case.
• Michael and Jane Timms v. Metro. Sch. Dist. OF Wabash Cnty.
  722 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1983-11-18 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims under the EAHCA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act were properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court also affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Phillips v. Int'l Ass'n OF Bridge
  556 F.2d 939· 9th Cir.· 1977-06-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that malicious prosecution of civil suits by a union against its members does not constitute 'discipline' under LMRDA § 411(a)(5), but can violate the right to institute legal action under § 411(a)(4).
• Morrow v. Giles W. Crisler
  479 F.2d 960· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-18 ·cited 18×
• 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.
• Lewis v. City OF FT. Collins
  903 F.2d 752· 10th Cir.· 1990-05-14 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying summary judgment based on qualified immunity, as the appellants made a sufficient showing of objective reasonableness and the plaintiff failed to produce specific evidence of discriminatory motive or to properly justify furt
• Lang v. Wyrick
  590 F.2d 257· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-19 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to set aside the judgment of dismissal.
• Uzzell v. Friday
  547 F.2d 801· 4th Cir.· 1977-01-05 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the University's funding of the Black Student Movement was moot due to policy changes, but its race-based selection criteria for the Campus Governing Council and Student Honor Court violated the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Acts.
• Ginn v. Mathews
  533 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1976-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Economic Opportunity Council's (EOC) extensive entanglement with federal and state funding and regulation constituted sufficient state action to subject its employment decisions to constitutional limitations.
• Mafu Inada v. Sgt. Richard Sullivan
  523 F.2d 485· 7th Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim for relief regarding threats made to him and his potential deportation, vacating the district court's dismissal.
• Tennyson v. GAS Serv. Co.
  506 F.2d 1135· 10th Cir.· 1974-11-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Johnson Act precludes federal jurisdiction over challenges to state utility rate orders, even when framed as class actions seeking declaratory and monetary relief.
• Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Wash. Tech. Inst.
  500 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim arising under the Constitution to invoke the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• James v. Lusby
  499 F.2d 488· D.C. Cir.· 1974-04-24 ·cited 16×
  The District Court did not abuse its discretion in certifying the case to the Superior Court because the record did not demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeded the jurisdictional threshold.
• Akron Bd. OF Educ. & Conrad C. Ott v. State Bd. OF Educ. OF Ohio
  490 F.2d 1285· 6th Cir.· 1974-01-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs have standing to sue and should be permitted to amend their complaint to add parties and assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co.
  483 F.2d 754· 3d Cir.· 1973-08-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the termination of utility service by a privately owned, heavily regulated utility company, absent specific state compulsion or direct involvement in the termination decision, does not constitute action 'under color of state law' for purposes of a Civil Rights
• Honey v. Goodman
  432 F.2d 333· 6th Cir.· 1970-10-09 ·cited 16×
  The dissenting judge believes that § 1983 is not an exception to the prohibition in § 2283 against federal courts enjoining state proceedings.
• Arensman v. Brown
  430 F.2d 190· 7th Cir.· 1970-07-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that prosecuting attorneys and hospital custodians are immune from civil liability for actions taken within their official capacities, and that federal courts should not interfere with state criminal proceedings absent exceptional circumstances.
• O'Connor v. O'Connor
  315 F.2d 420· 5th Cir.· 1963-03-29 ·cited 16×
  The federal court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as federal courts cannot review state court judgments under the Civil Rights Act unless a federally guaranteed right is violated.
• Baker v. McDonald's Corp.
  686 F. Supp. 1474· S.D. Fla.· 1987-12-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendant is appropriate because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination and the defendant presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the termination.
• Martin v. Demma
  831 F.2d 69· 5th Cir.· 1987-10-28 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the date of receipt of the complaint by the clerk, not the formal filing date, governs the commencement of an action for statute of limitations purposes.
• Ray v. Sch. Dist. of DeSoto Cnty.
  666 F. Supp. 1524· M.D. Fla.· 1987-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The court denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the exclusion of HIV-positive hemophiliac children from regular classrooms.
• DeVARGAS v. Montoya
  796 F.2d 1245· 10th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by the statute of limitations and res judicata, affirming the district court's dismissal.
• Krause v. Rhodes
  640 F.2d 214· 6th Cir.· 1981-03-27 ·cited 14×
  A federal district court has the equitable power to supervise and limit attorneys' fees derived from contingent fee contracts, especially when necessary to effectuate a settlement and ensure fairness to litigants.
• Reich v. City OF Freeport
  527 F.2d 666· 7th Cir.· 1975-12-24 ·cited 14×
  A former police officer lacks standing to challenge municipal ordinances as a citizen or taxpayer, and his claims regarding his discharge are barred by res judicata due to prior state court determination.
• Rance Lee VIA v. Cliff
  470 F.2d 271· 3d Cir.· 1972-12-06 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a prisoner's allegations of denied consultation with counsel, if proven, could constitute an infringement of the constitutional right to counsel actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that the district court's dismissal was premature.