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

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

• Carter v. Chief OF Police
  437 F.2d 413· 3d Cir.· 1971-01-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the pro se civil complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act against the named defendants and that the denial of a statutory 3-judge court was proper.
• Neumont v. Monroe Cnty.
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted in part the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, denying summary judgment on some counts, dismissing others as unripe or discretionary, and allowing certain claims to proceed.
• DOE v. Cowherd
  965 F.2d 109· 6th Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the state's statute is constitutionally infirm for failing to provide for the release of voluntarily admitted patients upon request, but reversed this finding due to lack of a case or controversy. It affirmed that the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard of pr
• Tarka v. Franklin
  891 F.2d 102· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-29 ·cited 2×
  A rejected applicant who audits courses is not a "student" under FERPA with a right to access admission files and recommendation letters.
• Md. Pest Control Ass'n v. Montgomery Cnty.
  884 F.2d 160· 4th Cir.· 1989-09-08 ·cited 2×
  A claim of federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore cannot support a claim for attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Scutieri v. Est. of Revitz
  683 F. Supp. 795· S.D. Fla.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact precluded summary judgment on most counts, denying motions for the Southeast Defendants and granting them for Paige and Fernandez on specific RICO claims.
• Brown v. City of Clewiston
  644 F. Supp. 1407· S.D. Fla.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 2×
  The court granted summary judgment for the City, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding the existence of an unconstitutional policy or custom that caused the plaintiff's injury, and that the state negligence claim was governed by state law, not city regulations.
• Olivieri v. Ward
  801 F.2d 602· 2d Cir.· 1986-09-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the district court correctly identified the infringement of civil rights, it erred in not adequately protecting the counterdemonstrators' rights and in its specific injunction regarding the number of demonstrators. The appellate court modified the injunc
• Barlow v. Marion Cnty. Hosp. Dist.
  495 F. Supp. 682· M.D. Fla.· 1980-07-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while plaintiffs stated constitutional claims over which it had jurisdiction, they failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on the Hill-Burton Act because they did not allege exhaustion of administrative remedies as required by the statute.
• Schmidt v. Wingo
  499 F.2d 70· 6th Cir.· 1974-06-21 ·cited 2×
  A "deliberate refusal" by a warden to follow a doctor's recommendation is not the sole basis for liability under the Civil Rights Act; the warden has a duty to investigate and provide necessary medical care.
• People CAB Co. v. Bloom
  472 F.2d 163· 3d Cir.· 1972-10-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a slander claim does not violate the Civil Rights Act and that other allegations lacked the required factual specificity.
• Moore v. Fields
  464 F.2d 549· 6th Cir.· 1972-07-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Tennessee Savings Statute applies to a federal Civil Rights action when the initial state court action was dismissed for failure to prosecute, provided the defendant received notice of the claim.
• Mrs. Travistine Alexander v. The Warren
  464 F.2d 471· 8th Cir.· 1972-07-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the school board provided clear and convincing evidence that the decision not to rehire the teacher was not racially motivated, despite the district's history of segregation.
• Spears v. Robinson
  431 F.2d 1089· 8th Cir.· 1970-09-22 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claims could not be aggregated to meet the jurisdictional amount requirement for federal question jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as the claim involved property rights rather than personal liberties.
• Smith v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Dist. OF Columbia
  380 F.2d 632· D.C. Cir.· 1967-06-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the appellants failed to exhaust their administrative remedies before seeking judicial relief, as a sufficient administrative process was available to address their claims.
• Nelson v. Hall
  368 F.2d 103· 9th Cir.· 1966-10-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction, as the sheriff's actions in selling the abandoned vehicle complied with state law and did not constitute a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Moss v. Jones
  288 F.2d 342· 6th Cir.· 1961-04-03 ·cited 2×
  A federal court cannot grant an injunction to stay state court proceedings, including an execution, except as expressly authorized by Congress or necessary to aid its own jurisdiction or protect its judgments.
• Eliahu Abukasis v. Eli Ran
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-07
  The court held that the plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and comply with pleading requirements, warranting dismissal.
• Johnson v. Ally Fin. Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
• Macker v. Macker
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-11-25
  A pro se litigant sued the Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott law firm and five Volusia Sheriff's Office officers, alleging an extensive conspiracy to defraud him and others through fraudulent collection practices and unconstitutional conduct over a twenty-year period. The
• Wright v. Brown
  N.D. Fla.· 2024-08-27
  The court recommended dismissal of the prisoner's civil rights complaint with prejudice and imposition of sanctions under Rule 11 and the All Writs Act due to his status as a 'three-striker' and the frivolous nature of his claims.
• Walters v. Sheldon
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-09-01
  The court held that the pro se prisoner's complaint was a shotgun pleading, failed to state claims under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and his application to proceed in forma pauperis was legally insufficient.
• Sterling Dicken v. Ashcroft
  972 F.2d 231· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-07
  The court held that the inmate's claims were either moot, conceded to be invalid, or not properly raised before the district court, thus affirming the dismissal.
• Gonzalez v. Martinez
  756 F. Supp. 1533· S.D. Fla.· 1991-01-18
  The court held that while the Protection and Advocacy Act requires exhaustion of administrative remedies where appropriate, the specific remedies cited by the defendants were inadequate, and the plaintiff's failure to exhaust did not warrant summary judgment at this stage.
• Mangan v. Cullen
  870 F.2d 1396· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-22
  The court held that the defendant administrator was entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's claim of discrimination under the Bankruptcy Code, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a deprivation of a liberty or property interest under the Due Process Clause.
• Dr. Ing. H. C. F. Porsche AG v. Classic Motor Carriages, Inc.
  316 F. Supp. 1039· S.D. Fla.· 1982-01-13
• Sandles v. Ruben
  314 F. Supp. 685· S.D. Fla.· 1981-03-25
• Cadena v. Perasso
  498 F.2d 383· 9th Cir.· 1974-05-28
  A judge is immune from civil liability for acts committed in their judicial capacity, and injunctive relief is inappropriate when adequate legal remedies exist.
• Schack v. Starr
  440 F.2d 378· 5th Cir.· 1971-04-01
  The court held that the appellant failed to establish damages resulting from alleged delays by his court-appointed counsel.
• Mack v. The Fla. State Bd. OF Dentistry
  430 F.2d 861· 5th Cir.· 1970-07-07
• Bryant v. Craven
  415 F.2d 775· 9th Cir.· 1969-08-25
  The court held that the prisoner's action was frivolous and properly dismissed, and that the denial of an injunction was within the sound discretion of the district judge.
• Taylor v. Peter Kiewit & Sons Co.
  271 F.2d 639· 10th Cir.· 1959-10-19
  The court held that the trial court's finding that the plaintiff was not laid off due to race but due to a reduction in force and performance issues was not clearly erroneous.