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

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

• Fayle v. Stapley
  607 F.2d 858· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that while the state statutes themselves were constitutional, the application of those statutes to deprive Fayle of property without notice and a hearing violated his due process rights. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the claim against one defendant due t
• Greer v. Turner
  603 F.2d 521· 5th Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the prior appeal did not resolve the false arrest claim and that the complaint stated a claim against the city detectives.
• Buckley Towers Condo., Inc. v. Buchwald
  595 F.2d 253· 5th Cir.· 1979-05-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the federal district court lacked jurisdiction to enjoin state court proceedings or review a state court judgment, as this would constitute impermissible federal court supervision of state courts.
• Gallagher v. Ernestine D. Evans
  536 F.2d 899· 10th Cir.· 1976-06-03 ·cited 6×
  The court concurred that the filing fee statutes were constitutional as applied to non-indigent candidates who were not denied ballot access.
• Padilla v. Hon. Harold J. Ackerman
  460 F.2d 477· 9th Cir.· 1972-05-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that federal courts should not enjoin pending state criminal proceedings absent special circumstances, even in civil rights actions, and that declaratory relief is subject to the same standard.
• Ellison v. Stephens
  581 F.2d 584· 6th Cir.· 1978-08-17 ·cited 5×
  A state Attorney General is immune from a civil rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for raising the common law doctrine of sovereign immunity as a defense in a state court action.
• Young v. Biggers
  938 F.2d 565· 5th Cir.· 1991-07-26 ·cited 4×
  The court held that claims against certain defendants were barred by immunity, while claims against police officers for alleged framing could proceed if specific facts were proven.
• Green v. Baron
  879 F.2d 305· 8th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Special Treatment Program (STP) did not constitute punishment as a matter of law, and therefore, the district court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict.
• Young v. Biggers
  917 F.2d 873· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-06 ·cited 2×
• King v. Goldsmith
  897 F.2d 885· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-12 ·cited 2×
  A criminal conviction does not bar a civil rights suit against law enforcement officers if the conviction was procured by fraud.
• Knoll v. Webster
  838 F.2d 450· 10th Cir.· 1988-02-02 ·cited 2×
  A member of the Board of Pardons is absolutely immune from damages liability for actions taken in the performance of official duties regarding parole.
• Duncan v. Foti
  828 F.2d 297· 5th Cir.· 1987-09-29 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the unavailability of notary services does not preclude filing requests under the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act due to an available statutory alternative.
• Hirrill v. Merriweather
  629 F.2d 490· 8th Cir.· 1980-01-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination claim was barred by res judicata, and while the pension claim's res judicata status was unclear, it was ultimately without merit and thus properly dismissed.
• Freeman & Bass, P. A. v. State OF NEW Jersey Comm'n OF Investigation
  486 F.2d 176· 3d Cir.· 1973-10-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in restraining the SCI from referring by name to individuals during public hearings, as such practice does not inherently violate due process or exceed the SCI's investigatory function.
• Thompson v. Rasberry
  993 F.2d 513· 5th Cir.· 1993-06-23
  A pro se prisoner's written objections to a magistrate's report and recommendation are deemed timely filed when they are forwarded to prison officials for delivery to the district court, consistent with the mailbox rule established in Houston v. Lack.
• Dixon v. Chrans
  986 F.2d 201· 7th Cir.· 1993-02-18
  The court held that an Illinois statute creating an exception to the tolling of the statute of limitations for prisoner claims against Department of Corrections officials is inconsistent with the purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cannot be applied to such suits.
• Shabazz v. Lynaugh
  974 F.2d 597· 5th Cir.· 1992-09-29
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging an Eighth Amendment excessive force claim need not plead or prove significant injury.
• Al Aswad T.A. Muhammad v. Lynaugh
  966 F.2d 901· 5th Cir.· 1992-06-15
• Kyle v. Allen
  732 F. Supp. 1157· S.D. Fla.· 1990-03-08
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of unsanitary conditions and inadequate medical treatment, if true, could constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, warranting rejection of the magistrate's recommendation to dismiss.
• Hernandez v. Whiting
  881 F.2d 768· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-04
  A district court must consider less drastic alternatives before dismissing a prisoner's pro se civil rights suit for failure to appear due to incarceration.
• Parton v. Wyrick
  766 F.2d 336· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-25
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding impeachment testimony due to insufficient foundation.