Civil Rights Claims Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

• Jack A. Braley, D.O. v. Garland Campbell, M.D.
  832 F.2d 1504· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 100×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have ordered the attorney to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and granted the appellees the right to respond.
• Broadway v. City OF Montgomery
  530 F.2d 657· 5th Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 81×
  The appeal of John L. Broadway is dismissed because he is a fugitive, and the judgment for the remaining plaintiffs is affirmed due to lack of admissible evidence.
• Henry v. First Nat'l Bank OF Clarksdale
  595 F.2d 291· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-21 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in issuing preliminary injunctions to preserve the status quo pending appeal of a state court judgment, as federal jurisdiction was proper and abstention doctrines did not apply.
• Caulder v. Durham Hous. Auth.
  433 F.2d 998· 4th Cir.· 1970-11-06 ·cited 38×
  A tenant in federally assisted public housing is entitled to due process protections, including adequate notice and a meaningful hearing, before termination of her lease.
• White Mountain Apache Tribe v. Williams
  810 F.2d 844· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-07 ·cited 33×
  A preemption claim under the Supremacy Clause, based on federal occupation of a field or conflict with federal goals, does not give rise to a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and therefore does not support an award of attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
• Shirey v. Bensalem Twp. & Bristol Borough & Bristol Twp. & Buckingham Twp. & Falls Twp. & Middletown Twp. & Tullytown Borough & Warminster Twp. & City of Philadelphia & Police Chief Michaels
  663 F.2d 472· 3d Cir.· 1981-11-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that an order dismissing a complaint as to one of multiple plaintiffs, without a Rule 54(b) certification, is not immediately appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, nor is it an appealable interlocutory order denying an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Toussaint v. McCARTHY
  826 F.2d 901· 9th Cir.· 1987-09-02 ·cited 13×
  A party is entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 for partial success on appeal, but the award must be reduced to reflect the limited extent of that success.
• Morris v. Mich. State Bd. OF Educ.
  472 F.2d 1207· 6th Cir.· 1973-01-25 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction regarding sex discrimination in noncontact interscholastic sports, but the injunction must be modified to exclude contact sports.
• Clark A. Bailey v. Gardebring
  940 F.2d 1150· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 10×
  The dissent argues that the new Minnesota parole regulations constitute a law for ex post facto purposes because they are binding on the agency and lack discretion, unlike federal guidelines. The dissent would find the regulations violate the ex post facto clause.
• Schowengerdt v. United States
  944 F.2d 483· 9th Cir.· 1991-09-06 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the plaintiff had no reasonable expectation of privacy in his office or credenza due to extreme workplace security measures, and his discharge from the Naval Reserve was not unconstitutional. The court affirmed the summary judgments.
• Andrade v. Rambosk
  2011 WL 1690010· M.D. Fla.· 2023-02-17 ·cited 1×
  The court denied defendants' motion to bifurcate the trial and stay discovery, finding that bifurcation was not demonstrably more efficient or necessary to avoid prejudice at this stage.
• Lozano v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
  M.D. Fla.· 2026-01-15
  The pro se habeas corpus petition is denied because the claims are not cognizable under § 2241 and the detention is not constitutionally excessive.
• Carter v. Garmman
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-12-01
  The court held that the plaintiff's amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and failed to state a claim, but granted the plaintiff one opportunity to file a second amended complaint.
• Henderson v. Judge Elisabeth Timothy
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint should be dismissed with prejudice because the defendants are entitled to judicial immunity, the plaintiff is a "three-striker" who failed to pay the filing fee and did not allege imminent danger, and the plaintiff failed to truthfull
• Coutain v. Keystone Prop. Mgmt., Inc.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-06-26
  The court held that venue was not proper in the Southern District of New York and transferred the case to the Southern District of Florida for convenience and in the interest of justice.
• Alvarez v. Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-23
  The Court held that attorneys' fees should not be awarded to the prevailing defendant because the plaintiffs' claims, though ultimately unsuccessful, were not frivolous, unreasonable, or without foundation.
• Davis v. Bradshaw
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-06-29
  The court held that the deputies were entitled to qualified immunity on the civil rights claims because the plaintiff failed to show they were deliberately indifferent to a substantial risk of harm, and that the negligence claims could proceed if timely notice requirements were m
• Diaz v. Romer
  961 F.2d 1508· 10th Cir.· 1992-04-20
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over the HIV policy, did not err in creating subclasses or awarding attorney's fees, and did not abuse its discretion in compelling discovery and awarding associated fees.