Final Policymaking Authority

112 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Angarita v. ST. Louis Cnty.
  981 F.2d 1537· 8th Cir.· 1992-12-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that the appellees' resignations were involuntarily extracted, thus overcoming the presumption of voluntariness, and that sufficient evidence existed to hold Kleinknecht and St. Louis County liable unde
• Fiorenzo v. Nolan
  965 F.2d 348· 7th Cir.· 1992-06-04 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the transfers were ordered or ratified by officials with final policymaking authority, and that Chief Nolan was protected by qualified immunity.
• Houston v. Reich
  932 F.2d 883· 10th Cir.· 1991-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in ordering the City to pay judgments against individual officers after the City had been dismissed from the action, and that the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act did not apply because the officers' conduct, as indicated by puniti
• Raben-Pastal v. City OF Coconut Creek
  573 So. 2d 298· Fla.· 1990-12-06 ·cited 4×
  A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a building official's refusal to withdraw a stop-work order because the official lacks final policy-making authority under state law. The building official's decisions are subject to review by the Board of Rules and
• Guidry v. Broussard
  897 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1990-03-27 ·cited 4×
  The court held that summary judgment for the school board should be affirmed because there was no official policy sufficient to impose liability for any constitutional wrong, and any claim against the counselor was barred by qualified immunity.
• Chaloux v. Vaughn Killeen
  873 F.2d 1274· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 4×
  County sheriffs are not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for enforcing state garnishment statutes, as they acted ministerially without final policymaking authority.
• Am. Fed'n of Labor-Congress of Indus. Orgs. v. City of Miami
  650 F. Supp. 2d 1258· S.D. Fla.· 2009-09-02 ·cited 3×
  The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims (Counts 1 and 3) and failure to train/supervise claims (Count 4), finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding city policy or deliberate indifference.
• Gainer v. City of Winter Haven
  170 F. Supp. 2d 1225· M.D. Fla.· 2001-06-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims failed because their speech was not a matter of public concern or did not play a substantial part in their termination, and their procedural due process claims failed due to adequate state remedies.
• Cason Enters., Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty.
  20 F. Supp. 2d 1331· S.D. Fla.· 1998-08-11 ·cited 3×
  The court affirmed the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment for the defendants.
• Mann v. Hillsborough Cnty. Sheriff's Off.
  946 F. Supp. 962· M.D. Fla.· 1996-11-25 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the Creasys' actions, even with deputy presence, did not constitute state action under § 1983, and thus granted their motion for summary judgment. The court also found that factual issues remained regarding the Sheriff's liability for failure to train and supe
• Biondolillo v. City of Sunrise
  736 F. Supp. 258· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-04 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a claim for municipal liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, but dismissed the RICO claims because a municipality cannot possess the requisite criminal intent.
• Sharp v. City of Palatka
  529 F. Supp. 2d 1354· M.D. Fla.· 2007-12-20 ·cited 2×
  Alexander Sharp, a police officer with the Palatka Police Department, sued the City of Palatka under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging retaliation for his protected First Amendment speech—specifically, his decision to run for Sheriff and his campaign platform to consolidate the police de
• Gay-Straight Alliance of Okeechobee High Sch. v. Sch. Bd.
  477 F. Supp. 2d 1246· S.D. Fla.· 2007-03-13 ·cited 2×
  An unincorporated association has standing to bring a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the plaintiffs adequately pleaded a claim against the school board.
• Engelleiter v. Brevard Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't
  290 F. Supp. 2d 1300· M.D. Fla.· 2003-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendant's motion for summary judgment should be granted because the undisputed facts did not demonstrate deliberate indifference to the plaintiff's serious medical needs, nor did they establish a policy or custom of deliberate indifference.
• McCurry v. Moore
  242 F. Supp. 2d 1167· N.D. Fla.· 2002-11-21 ·cited 2×
  The court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants Moore and Franklin on certain claims and denying it in others, remanding the case for further proceedings.
• Scala v. City of Winter Park
  105 F. Supp. 757· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City is not liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the officials who terminated the plaintiff's employment did not possess final policy-making authority. Therefore, their actions could not be attributed to the City as official policy.
• Robert Dale Hicks (92-5105) v. Chief Richard A. Frey (92-5063)
  992 F.2d 1450· 6th Cir.· 1993-05-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of deliberate indifference against Richard Frey.
• Harrington v. Almy
  977 F.2d 37· 1st Cir.· 1992-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the summary judgment record was insufficient to determine as a matter of law whether a constitutional right was violated or if the official's actions were objectively reasonable.
• Raben-Pastal v. City OF Coconut Creek
  545 So. 2d 885· Fla. 4th DCA· 1989-01-25 ·cited 2×
  A construction company appealed a post-trial judgment setting aside a jury verdict in its federal civil rights action against a city and its building official for allegedly violating the company's constitutional rights by improperly maintaining stop-work orders. The appellate cou
• Mullins v. The City OF Huntsville
  785 F.2d 1529· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-07 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment for the City of Huntsville because genuine issues of material fact remained regarding whether the disciplinary actions constituted official policy under Monell.
• Gainer v. City of Winter Haven
  134 F. Supp. 2d 1295· M.D. Fla.· 2000-11-08 ·cited 1×
  The court dismissed the procedural due process claim for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, finding Florida's certiorari review adequate. The First Amendment claim was dismissed because the recommending official lacked final policymaking authority and there was no
• Mitchell v. Lealman Volunteer Fire Co.
  124 F. Supp. 192· M.D. Fla.· 1996-09-30 ·cited 1×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to establish a property interest in continued employment and that Lealman was qualifiedly immune from their claims, and that the county was not vicariously liable.
• Battista v. Cannon
  934 F. Supp. 400· M.D. Fla.· 1996-07-24 ·cited 1×
  A sheriff can be held liable for a deputy's misconduct if the sheriff's own policies or customs, or failure to investigate or supervise, were the moving force behind the constitutional violation, and sovereign immunity does not bar claims based on operational negligence.
• Smith v. Avino
  866 F. Supp. 1399· S.D. Fla.· 1994-10-20 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the county manager had final policy-making authority, making the county potentially liable under § 1983, and that the curfew was not unconstitutionally overbroad or vague.
• Gillette v. Delmore
  979 F.2d 1342· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-10 ·cited 1×
  A municipality cannot be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a subordinate's discretionary constitutional violation simply because a policymaker failed to overrule it. Such inaction does not constitute ratification or establish a policy or custom.
• Dees v. City of Miami
  747 F. Supp. 679· S.D. Fla.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 1×
  Summary judgment is granted for defendants because reasonable officers could have believed probable cause existed for the arrest and prosecution, and supervisory defendants did not directly cause the constitutional deprivation.
• Natacha Jean-Francois v. The City of N. Miami
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to adequately plead municipal liability under Section 1983 and failed to establish the conditions precedent for her Title VII claims, warranting dismissal.
• Neighbors & Neighbors Ass'n, Inc. v. Keon Hardemon
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-11-06
  The court held that the plaintiff has standing, but the defendant commissioner is protected by legislative immunity for his actions related to the housing program.
• Durance v. The Sch. Bd. of Glades Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-11-04
  The court held that Plaintiff failed to state a plausible claim for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and the First Amendment, and that the school board could not be held liable under § 1983 on theories of ratification or delegation.
• Vazquez v. Lee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-09
  The court held that the amended complaint was a shotgun pleading and dismissed all claims without prejudice due to insufficient factual allegations and failure to exhaust administrative remedies for some claims.
• Durance v. The Sch. Bd. of Glades Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-04
  The court held that Plaintiff sufficiently alleged disability discrimination under the ADA and FCRA, and retaliation under the Rehabilitation Act, but failed to state claims for retaliation under the ADA, FCRA, and First Amendment.
• Riegel v. The Sch. Bd. of Lee Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-07-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of Monell liability, adverse conduct, or causation, and thus summary judgment for the defendant School Board was granted.
• Ortiz v. Sch. Bd. of Hillsborough Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-17
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state claims for equal protection, Section 504, Title II, negligence, and FEEA against the School Board due to insufficient allegations of municipal policy, meaningful access denial, breach of duty, or deliberate indifference, but grant
• Pereyra-Diaz v. City of Doral
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-09-23
  The court recommended denying the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff plausibly alleged a property interest in her employment, a deprivation of due process due to lack of a hearing, and a liberty interest claim based on a stigmatizing statement in her termination letter
• Waters v. Officer Calderon
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-08-05
  The court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing individual plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing, claims against John Doe defendants, and supervisory liability claims, while allowing amendment for wrongful death claims and denying dismissal for ex
• Riegel v. The Sch. Bd. of Lee Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-04-01
  The court held that a First Amendment retaliation claim based on a 2013 contract non-renewal and rejection for an audit committee position were properly dismissed, but the claim regarding the Director of Risk Management position was sufficiently pleaded to survive dismissal.
• Andrade v. Rambosk
  M.D. Fla.· 2023-08-08
  The court held that Collier County's motion to dismiss the Monell claim and state law vicarious liability claims is denied, but the indemnification claim is granted.
• Congregation 3401 Prarie Bais Yeshaya Dkerestir, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2023-05-10
  The court held that the City's interpretation of its zoning ordinance was impermissible, and genuine disputes of material fact precluded summary judgment on the First Amendment retaliation claim and the counterclaim. The court granted summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment
• Starnes v. Nocco
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-21
  Christopher Starnes, a former sheriff's lieutenant, brought claims against his former supervisors alleging civil RICO violations and constitutional injuries stemming from his forced resignation following an Internal Affairs complaint about an alleged sexual relationship with a co
• Squitieri v. Nocco
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-21
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under RICO because he did not adequately plead predicate acts of racketeering activity or a pattern of such activity.
• Darlow v. The City of Coral Springs
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-08-10
  The court held that the plaintiff sufficiently pleaded that his speech involved a matter of public concern, but deferred the Pickering balancing test and qualified immunity determination to summary judgment, thus denying dismissal of the claim against the individual defendant. Ho
• Laroche v. Browning
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-07-26
  The court held that a claim against a school superintendent in his official capacity is duplicative of a claim against the school board and that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege the superintendent was the final decisionmaker for the demotion.
• Teblum v. The City of Cape Coral Charter Sch. Auth.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-03-29
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded facts to support their First Amendment retaliation claims, as they alleged speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern, and therefore denied the defendant's motion to dismiss.
• Red Door Asian Bistro v. City of Ft. Lauderdale
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-03-17
  Red Door Asian Bistro, an Asian restaurant owned by Asian-heritage plaintiffs, sued Fort Lauderdale alleging that a city mechanical inspector discriminated against them based on race and national origin by improperly denying and revoking their permits, and that the city ratified
• Chabad Chayil, Inc. v. The Sch. Bd. of Miami-Dade Cnty. Fla.
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-01-22
  A nonprofit organization providing Jewish cultural and Hebrew language programs sought to use Miami-Dade County public school facilities at reduced rates for over a decade, but after an investigation by the Office of the Inspector General documented misrepresentations regarding p
• Watkins v. Sergeant M. Bigwood
  S.D. Fla.· 2020-07-07
  The court granted the City of Lauderhill's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff failed to state an actionable official capacity claim in Count III and a failure to train claim in Count IV.
• Davis v. City of Apopka
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-12-05
  The court held that the warrantless search of the plaintiff's home was unconstitutional, and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff on this issue. However, the court denied summary judgment for the plaintiff against the City, finding a disputed issue of material fact regardin
• Wilson v. Williams
  M.D. Fla.· 2019-11-26
  The Court denied the Sheriff's motion to dismiss claims of municipal liability, battery, and false imprisonment, finding the complaint sufficiently alleged facts to state plausible claims.
• Charles v. Miami-Dade Police Dep't
  S.D. Fla.· 2019-10-28
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted for his federal constitutional and state law claims, granting the defendants' motion to dismiss.
• LeCounte v. City of Miami Beach
  2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24255· S.D. Fla.· 2016-02-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 were properly dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim, but her claims under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act could proceed.