Violation Of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

1,055 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 2,310 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Thistlethwaite v. The City OF NEW York
  497 F.2d 339· 2d Cir.· 1974-05-13 ·cited 36×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a prior state court determination on the constitutionality of park regulations, arising from a criminal conviction for violating those regulations, has res judicata effect and bars a subsequent federal action under the Civil Rights Act seeking similar relief.
• Thoms v. Heffernan
  473 F.2d 478· 2d Cir.· 1973-01-08 ·cited 36×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The dissenting judge believes the court lacks appellate jurisdiction because the three-judge district court failed to properly address injunctive relief, and thus the case should be remanded.
• Rodriguez v. McGINNIS
  456 F.2d 79· 2d Cir.· 1972-01-25 ·cited 36×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court affirmed the district court's orders releasing petitioners, holding that their claims for good behavior time credit were properly considered under the habeas corpus statute, which requires exhaustion of state remedies.
• Lefcourt v. The Legal AID Soc'y
  445 F.2d 1150· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-18 ·cited 36×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The appellate court has jurisdiction solely to correct the lower court's error in entertaining a suit without jurisdiction, and cannot reach the merits.
• Keyes v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  445 F.2d 990· 10th Cir.· 1971-06-11 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the school board's actions in drawing attendance boundaries, constructing schools, and manipulating transfers constituted purposeful de jure segregation, violating the Fourteenth Amendment. The rescission of integration resolutions was also found to perpetuate
• Dellinger v. Mitchell
  442 F.2d 782· D.C. Cir.· 1971-02-16 ·cited 36×
  A district court's stay order is improper if it is immoderate in duration and scope, particularly when applied to parties not involved in the related criminal case or when it extends beyond the trial phase of the criminal proceedings.
• Williams v. Dunbar
  377 F.2d 505· 9th Cir.· 1967-04-26 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the appellant's claims for violation of due process in parole revocation procedures did not raise a federal question, and state law claims were also properly dismissed.
• Adams v. City OF Park Ridge
  293 F.2d 585· 7th Cir.· 1961-08-21 ·cited 36×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A municipal ordinance prohibiting solicitation of funds for charitable purposes without prior consent of the City Council, which lacks standards for granting or withholding permits and exempts a specific organization, is an unconstitutional prior restraint on free speech and viol
• Starrett v. Wadley
  876 F.2d 808· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that sexual harassment can violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and that a supervisor's termination of an employee can constitute official policy for which a county may be liable under Section 1983, but other acts of harassment may not.
• A1 Friedman v. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs OF Bernalillo Cnty.
  781 F.2d 777· 10th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 35×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's ruling, holding that the Bernalillo County seal, which includes a cross and the motto "CON ESTA VENCEMOS," does not violate the Establishment Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, nor the Religion Clause of th
• Joan W. v. City OF Chicago
  771 F.2d 1020· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-26 ·cited 35×·via § 1983 Suit
  The court held that while the plaintiff's counsel's "Golden Rule" argument was improper, it was not reversible error given the trial court's actions. However, the jury's $112,000 damage award was found to be excessive.
• Garcia v. Salt Lake Cnty.
  768 F.2d 303· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-17 ·cited 35×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights
  A municipality can be held liable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for constitutional deprivations resulting from its official policy or custom, even if individual officers' actions do not independently violate civil rights.
• Dykes v. A.J. Hosemann, Jr.
  743 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 35×·via Section 1983
• Cohen v. City OF Philadelphia & Green
  736 F.2d 81· 3d Cir.· 1984-06-06 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the availability of state judicial review for administrative errors satisfies due process, even if the administrative body made a substantive mistake. Therefore, the plaintiff's section 1983 claim was barred under Parratt v. Taylor.
• Patterson v. Mintzes
  717 F.2d 284· 6th Cir.· 1983-09-07 ·cited 35×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a district court's consideration of untimely objections to a magistrate's report, even without a formal extension, does not waive the right to appeal, and that summary judgment was improperly granted on the plaintiff's First Amendment and Eighth Amendment clai
• Riley v. City OF Chester & Joseph F. Battle
  612 F.2d 708· 3d Cir.· 1979-12-14 ·cited 35×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  A qualified federal common law privilege protects journalists from being compelled to disclose their sources, and this privilege can only be overcome by a strong showing of necessity and unavailability of the information from other sources.
• Tovar v. Billmeyer
  609 F.2d 1291· 9th Cir.· 1979-11-06 ·cited 35×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The district court erred in dismissing the federal action based on abstention doctrine, as appellants did not freely and without reservation submit their federal claims for resolution in state court.
• French v. Heyne
  547 F.2d 994· 7th Cir.· 1976-12-22 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the dismissal of the inmates' claims regarding vocational training limitations and the prohibition on soliciting funds for educational programs was improper, as these claims stated a potential violation of the Equal Protection and First Amendments, respectivel
• Mrs. Carnell Russ v. Ratliff
  538 F.2d 799· 8th Cir.· 1976-07-27 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the police officer used excessive force in shooting the decedent, and the jury verdict exonerating him could not stand. The court also affirmed the dismissal of claims against other defendants.
• Duke v. The State OF Tex.
  477 F.2d 244· 5th Cir.· 1973-04-20 ·cited 35×
  Federal injunctive relief against state judicial proceedings is not prohibited where state procedures are inadequate to protect federal rights and prevent irreparable harm.
• Morales v. Schmidt
  489 F.2d 1335· 7th Cir.· 1973-01-17 ·cited 35×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the record did not adequately justify the prison's ad hoc decision to prohibit all communication between an inmate and his wife's sister, as it lacked support from regulations and failed to demonstrate necessity over less drastic alternatives.
• Reynaldo Huguet v. Barnett
  900 F.2d 838· 5th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the inmate's Section 1983 excessive force claim under the Eighth Amendment standard, as the plaintiff failed to prove the necessary elements.
• Triad Assocs., Inc. v. Chicago Hous. Auth.
  892 F.2d 583· 7th Cir.· 1990-02-15 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a due process violation may be precluded by adequate state post-deprivation remedies, and that a conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) can encompass animus against white individuals.
• Jones v. Bd. OF Police Comm'rs
  844 F.2d 500· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-01 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial, in its jury instructions, or in admitting evidence of the plaintiff's prior convictions for impeachment purposes.
• Parrish v. Johnson
  800 F.2d 600· 6th Cir.· 1986-09-05 ·cited 34×·via Section 1983
  The court held that the district court erred in denying Giles' First and Eighth Amendment claims and in awarding only nominal damages to Parrish for his First Amendment violations. The court reversed the denial of Giles' claims and remanded for further proceedings on damages.
• Escamilla v. City OF Santa ANA
  796 F.2d 266· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-31 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that police officers present at a bar shooting did not deprive a bystander of life without due process by failing to intervene, as no special relationship existed and the officers did not create the danger.
• Kraus v. Cnty. OF Pierce
  793 F.2d 1105· 9th Cir.· 1986-07-08 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that the deputies' actions constituted an arrest without probable cause, but the subsequent entry into the house was consensual and did not violate any rights.
• Joseph v. Patterson
  795 F.2d 549· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  Prosecutors are not absolutely immune for investigative or administrative acts, but are immune for actions directly related to initiating and presenting a criminal case. Investigators generally have qualified immunity.
• Forrester v. Judge Howard Lee White
  792 F.2d 647· 7th Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a state judge is not absolutely immune from civil liability for firing a probation officer in violation of the officer's constitutional rights, as this is an administrative rather than a judicial act.
• Brewer v. Muscle Shoals Bd. OF Educ.
  790 F.2d 1515· 11th Cir.· 1986-05-30 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argued that the appellant's conviction for kidnapping should be affirmed because the victim's confinement in a bathroom, barricaded by bags, constituted a significant deprivation of liberty, meeting the statutory test for kidnapping, even if the victim escape
• Holloway v. Judge Dee Brown Walker
  784 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that alleged conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of property through judicial proceedings does not violate due process because adequate post-deprivation remedies (appeal) exist, and the right to a fair trial is procedural, not substantive.
• Williams v. Mensey
  785 F.2d 631· 8th Cir.· 1986-03-07 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court affirmed the judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish county liability under § 1983, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion regarding discovery, mistrial, evidence admission, or damage and fee awards.
• Robbins v. Maggio
  750 F.2d 405· 5th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that orders denying appointment of counsel in civil cases are not immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
• Premachandra v. Mitts
  753 F.2d 635· 8th Cir.· 1985-01-14 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The dissenting judge argues the majority opinion misinterprets the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) by disregarding legislative history and rendering statutory language ineffective. The dissent believes the EAJA was intended to place the federal government on equal footing with
• Hagee v. City OF Evanston
  729 F.2d 510· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-09 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that the appellants' federal damages suit was barred by res judicata under Illinois law because the claims could have been raised in their prior state court action arising from the same set of facts.
• Strathie v. Dep't OF Transp.
  716 F.2d 227· 3d Cir.· 1983-09-08 ·cited 34×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Act Of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983)
  A handicapped individual is not 'otherwise qualified' if accommodation would require modification of the program's essential nature or impose an undue burden; the court must consider proposed accommodations.
• Bauer v. Norris
  713 F.2d 408· 8th Cir.· 1983-08-08 ·cited 34×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding a civil rights violation due to excessive force, and the damages awarded were not excessive.
• Palmer v. Hudson
  697 F.2d 1220· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that intentional destruction of prisoner property is not a due process violation if an adequate state remedy exists, but a prisoner's claim of an unreasonable search motivated by harassment requires further factual determination.
• Occhino v. United States
  686 F.2d 1302· 8th Cir.· 1982-08-25 ·cited 34×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act claim for false imprisonment damages was not clearly erroneous, and that a § 1983 claim, previously barred by the statute of limitations, should be analyzed under a broader statutory limitations period due to the Garmon decision's r
• Harris v. City OF Roseburg
  664 F.2d 1121· 9th Cir.· 1981-12-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while a police officer's mere presence during a repossession might not constitute state action, active participation or intimidation preventing a debtor from exercising legal rights can lead to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, the officer was immune
• Commonwealth OF Pa. & Richard W. Baumann v. Porter
  659 F.2d 306· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 34×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is an appropriate plaintiff to bring a parens patriae action seeking injunctive relief against police misconduct and that the case was not rendered moot by the officer's change of employment.
• Milwe v. Cavuoto
  653 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1981-06-25 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, as its reasoning was based on an overly restrictive interpretation of precedent and failed to consider key factors.
• Major v. Ariz. State Prison
  642 F.2d 311· 9th Cir.· 1981-04-16 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the Arizona tolling statute should be applied to an imprisoned state prisoner's § 1983 claim, despite the majority's reasoning.
• NEW Jersey-Philadelphia Presbytery OF THE Bible Presbyterian Church v. NEW Jersey State Bd. OF Higher Educ.
  654 F.2d 868· 3d Cir.· 1981-04-14 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The majority's rule allowing federal plaintiffs, not parties to a state proceeding, to interfere with that proceeding is unprecedented and contrary to established precedent.
• Downing v. Williams
  624 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred by disregarding the jury's findings of fact, which were supported by substantial evidence, and by independently re-examining the record on issues of procedural due process and First Amendment rights.
• Williams v. Bd. OF Regents OF THE Univ. Sys. OF Ga.
  629 F.2d 993· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-05 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court did not err in refusing to admit evidence of a confidentiality policy for police accident reports, nor in refusing to allow Pickering defenses or a qualified immunity charge, as the policy conflicted with state law and the defendants' action
• Mollie H. Watson and Jack Watson v. Interstate Fire & Cas. Co.
  611 F.2d 120· 5th Cir.· 1980-02-06 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that Judge Mouser was performing a judicial function and thus immune from liability, and Sheriff Cowart was not personally involved and not vicariously liable for his deputies' actions under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Clark v. Whiting
  607 F.2d 634· 4th Cir.· 1979-09-17 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  Federal courts should not review academic promotion decisions based on subjective evaluations of scholarly merit, absent claims of racial/sex discrimination or First Amendment violations.
• Johnson v. Presley Hardy
  601 F.2d 172· 5th Cir.· 1979-08-07 ·cited 34×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A prisoner's challenge to the duration of confinement, even if framed as a request for damages or declaratory relief under § 1983, is properly treated as a habeas corpus matter requiring exhaustion of state remedies.
• Green v. Eyck
  572 F.2d 1233· 8th Cir.· 1978-03-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the 180-day statute of limitations for housing discrimination claims applied to §§ 1981 and 1982, but a three-year statute applied to the § 1983 claim. The court also held that the plaintiffs' claim under the Fair Housing Act was untimely.