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

• DOE v. Mundy
  514 F.2d 1179· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-30 ·cited 14×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court affirmed the district court's order granting a preliminary injunction, finding that the hospital's rule restricting abortions was likely unconstitutional and that the injunction was properly issued.
• Rampey v. Walt Allen
  501 F.2d 1090· 10th Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 14×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The majority opinion reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the non-renewal of faculty contracts constituted a violation of First Amendment rights. The dissenting opinion argues against this conclusion.
• Bergstralh v. Lowe
  504 F.2d 1276· 9th Cir.· 1974-08-06 ·cited 14×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the district court erred in ruling as a matter of law that the arrest was legal, as conflicting evidence required jury determination.
• Blouin v. Hon. Nanette Dembitz
  489 F.2d 488· 2d Cir.· 1973-12-13 ·cited 14×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the § 1983 action, holding that federal courts should abstain from deciding issues of state judicial administration that are best left to state courts.
• Santiago v. Corporacion de Renovacion Urbana Y Vivienda de Puerto RICO
  453 F.2d 794· 1st Cir.· 1972-01-05 ·cited 14×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the dismissal of the complaint was erroneous because it was based on evidence presented solely for a temporary restraining order without proper notice, and disputed factual issues precluded summary judgment.
• Juliette A. Tichon v. Harder
  438 F.2d 1396· 2d Cir.· 1971-02-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a probationary public employee's claim of procedural due process denial in dismissal does not, without more, establish a "right of personal liberty" sufficient to confer jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3).
• Smith v. Schneckloth
  414 F.2d 680· 9th Cir.· 1969-07-22 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the inmate's complaint failed to state a cause of action under the Civil Rights Act for denial of equal protection or cruel and unusual punishment.
• Clarke v. Redeker
  406 F.2d 883· 8th Cir.· 1969-02-14 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff's current action for damages was barred by res judicata because the same cause of action had been previously adjudicated in a prior lawsuit.
• Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co.
  409 F.2d 121· 2d Cir.· 1968-12-27 ·cited 14×
• Wynn v. City of Lakeland
  727 F. Supp. 2d 1309· M.D. Fla.· 2010-07-20 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that summary judgment is granted for assault and negligence claims, but denied for excessive force and battery claims.
• Hernandez v. Seminole Cnty.
  334 F.3d 1233· 11th Cir.· 2003-06-24 ·cited 13×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  Plaintiffs filed a § 1983 suit in Florida state court against Seminole County and multiple defendants for the death of a pretrial detainee allegedly caused by deliberate indifference to medical needs. Most defendants removed the case to federal court, but two defendants (Dr. Dube
• Buzzi v. Gomez
  62 F. Supp. 2d 1344· S.D. Fla.· 1999-02-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for failing to establish a prima facie case of retaliation or pretextual discrimination.
• Elder v. R.D. Holloway
  975 F.2d 1388· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-19 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A plaintiff in a § 1983 action seeking to overcome qualified immunity must identify the body of law that proves the right allegedly violated was clearly established at the time of the incident. If the plaintiff fails to present such law, the district court does not err by conside
• Reese v. Anderson
  926 F.2d 494· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-21 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the officer's use of deadly force was objectively reasonable under the circumstances, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact.
• Drake v. City OF Fort Collins
  927 F.2d 1156· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-13 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for disparate impact and failed to show pretext for disparate treatment under Title VII, and affirmed the dismissal of other claims.
• Hill v. Shelander
  924 F.2d 1370· 7th Cir.· 1991-02-12 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority erred in allowing an amendment to change the capacity of the defendant from official to individual to relate back to the original filing date, as it did not involve a mistake in identity and prejudiced the defendant.
• Artist M. v. Johnson
  917 F.2d 980· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-29 ·cited 13×
  The 'reasonable efforts' clause of the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980 is too ambiguous to create an enforceable right under the Act or § 1983.
• Ayers v. Allain
  914 F.2d 676· 5th Cir.· 1990-09-28 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the district court's finding that Mississippi is not currently engaged in purposeful discrimination, but the dissenting judge argued that the state still has a duty to undo the vestiges of past de jure segregation.
• Sable Commc'ns OF Cal., Inc. v. Pac. Tel. & Tel. Co.
  890 F.2d 184· 9th Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a case or controversy existed, Pacific Bell acted under color of state law, and abstention was not required. However, the CPUC is immune from suit under section 1983, and the attorney fee award must be reallocated between defendants.
• Connelly v. Comptroller OF THE Currency
  876 F.2d 1209· 5th Cir.· 1989-07-07 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the Comptroller's officials are entitled to qualified immunity because the alleged violations of Connelly's constitutional rights were not based on clearly established law, and the Privacy Act does not create individual liability for damages.
• Weimer v. Amen
  870 F.2d 1400· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of procedural and substantive due process violations failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the alleged fraudulent actions by state officials were random and unauthorized, and thus the state's post-deprivation
• Robinson v. Block
  869 F.2d 202· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-28 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the "same address" test used by the DPW to presume siblings lived together for food stamp purposes was an impermissible interpretation of the Food Stamp Act. It also held that the dismissal of third-party verification claims and denial of leave to amend were e
• Gilmere v. City OF Atlanta
  864 F.2d 734· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-30 ·cited 13×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that in a § 1983 wrongful death case, federal courts must apply state law for damages unless inconsistent with federal law, and the district court's award was inadequate.
• Zook v. Brown
  865 F.2d 887· 7th Cir.· 1989-01-17 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights
  The court held that Standard 2.19 of the Sheriff's Department Operating Procedures Manual is constitutional both on its face and as applied to Deputy Zook, and that the application of Standard 4.4 was unconstitutional. The court also affirmed the denial of a jury trial for damage
• McDONALD v. Armontrout
  860 F.2d 1456· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-09 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorney fees, affirming the hourly rates, compensation for monitoring, and inclusion of habeas corpus work.
• Johnson v. R.I. Parole Bd. Members
  815 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-31 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  State parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages in a § 1983 action for actions taken within the proper scope of their official duties.
• Butler-Bey v. Frey
  811 F.2d 449· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-10 ·cited 13×
  Prison regulations prohibiting headwear, restricting meeting attendance, and limiting funding for religious materials did not violate prisoners' free exercise or equal protection rights, as they were based on legitimate penological and security concerns.
• Lemke v. Cass Cnty.
  846 F.2d 469· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-04 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding no error in the judgment.
• Am. Booksellers Ass'n, Inc. v. Commonwealth OF Va.
  802 F.2d 691· 4th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the Virginia amendment restricting display of sexually explicit material to juveniles was facially unconstitutional as overbroad and infringing on First Amendment rights, but reversed the denial of attorneys' fees for the prevailing plaintiffs against the Comm
• Morgan v. United States Postal Serv.
  798 F.2d 1162· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-18 ·cited 13×
  The court held that claims of handicap discrimination against the federal government under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require exhaustion of administrative remedies, and the appellant failed to demonstrate that such remedies were inadequate.
• ORT v. Dr. Pinchback
  786 F.2d 1105· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A physician contracting with the state to provide medical care to inmates acts under color of state law for purposes of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim. Summary judgment was therefore inappropriate.
• Johnson v. Kemp
  781 F.2d 1570· 11th Cir.· 1986-02-14 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in setting a partial filing fee based on the inmate's litigation history without considering good faith and in setting an amount disproportionately high given the inmate's limited financial resources.
• Colombrito v. Galen G. Kelly
  764 F.2d 122· 2d Cir.· 1985-06-12 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court erred in awarding attorney's fees to the defendants because the plaintiff's claims were not frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, and the stipulation did not waive the right to contest the fee award's appropriateness.
• Daniels v. Woodbury Cnty.
  742 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court correctly found due process violations in the administration of the general relief program and affirmed the award of damages, but remanded for a more specific injunction and further findings on eligibility standards.
• Peraza v. Delameter
  722 F.2d 1455· 9th Cir.· 1984-01-03 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the police canine policy and evidence of subsequent bad acts, and that the jury instructions were adequate.
• Flaherty v. Coughlin
  713 F.2d 10· 2d Cir.· 1983-07-21 ·cited 13×
  Summary judgment was improperly granted because the plaintiff's allegations of retaliatory denial of temporary release, supported by circumstantial evidence, raised a colorable suspicion of retaliation that warranted further discovery.
• Hernandez v. City OF Lafayette & Kenneth J. Bowen
  699 F.2d 734· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-07 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that while the district court erred in applying federal res judicata principles instead of Louisiana's, the outcome remains the same as Louisiana res judicata also bars the claim. Changed circumstances were not significant enough to overcome res judicata.
• Dilmore v. Stubbs
  636 F.2d 966· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-09 ·cited 13×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the unconstitutionality of the hospital's admissions policy was not clearly established at the time of the plaintiff's confinement.
• Williams v. Hoyt
  556 F.2d 1336· 5th Cir.· 1977-08-08 ·cited 13×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court affirmed the jury's verdict for the defendants, finding no reversible error in the trial court's rulings or conduct.
• Edelberg v. The Ill. Racing Bd.
  540 F.2d 279· 7th Cir.· 1976-08-09 ·cited 13×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the Illinois Racing Board Rule 317c, which provides for the automatic withholding and redistribution of purse money when a winning horse is found to be drugged, does not violate the Due Process Clause because it establishes an objective condition precedent to
• Helfant v. Kugler
  500 F.2d 1188· 3d Cir.· 1974-07-08 ·cited 13×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The dissenting judge argues that federal courts should not interfere in ongoing state criminal proceedings absent bad faith, harassment, or truly extraordinary circumstances, which are not present here.
• Smith v. Sch. Bd. OF Palm Beach Cnty.
  981 So. 2d 6· Fla. 4th DCA· 2007-11-21 ·cited 12×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  Jerry Smith appealed a trial court's determination of attorney's fees and costs in his § 1983 civil rights action against the School Board of Palm Beach County. The appellate court affirmed the reasonable number of hours and rejection of a lodestar multiplier, but reversed the ho
• Samedi v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  134 F. Supp. 2d 1320· S.D. Fla.· 2001-01-26 ·cited 12×·via Section 1983
  Summary judgment is granted for Defendant White on claims of supervisory liability and retaliation, and for other defendants on various counts, due to lack of genuine issues of material fact.
• Jones v. Kirkland
  696 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-06-25 ·cited 12×·via Violation Of Due Process Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  A prisoner disciplined at a state correctional facility appeals dismissal of his complaint alleging that correctional officials violated his due process rights by denying his requests for staff assistance, witnesses, and documentary evidence at a disciplinary hearing. The court r
• Stowell v. Ives
  976 F.2d 65· 1st Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 12×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Cause Of Action
  A recipient of benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program cannot bring an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to enforce the terms of 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(c)(1) because that statute obligates the federal Secretary, not the state, to take action.
• Brooks v. Elliott
  593 So. 2d 1209· Fla. 5th DCA· 1992-02-21 ·cited 12×
  A minor's federal civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against public employees was dismissed by the trial court on grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations and failed to comply with Florida's three-year notice requirement. The appellate court reversed, h
• Kendrick v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. OF Educ.
  932 F.2d 910· 11th Cir.· 1991-06-06 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the three-month probationary period under board policy applied, not the longer statutory period, and that the board waived its statute of limitations defense. It also held that Alabama county boards of education are not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Moore v. Webster
  932 F.2d 1229· 8th Cir.· 1991-05-08 ·cited 12×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that state officials were entitled to qualified immunity for actions taken under statutory authority, and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• PFZ Props., Inc. v. Rodriguez
  928 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process or equal protection, as the post-deprivation remedies provided by Puerto Rico law were constitutionally adequate and the alleged actions did not rise to the level of a f
• McKINNEY v. State of Okla.
  925 F.2d 363· 10th Cir.· 1991-02-08 ·cited 12×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) because the defendants were immune from suit and the claims lacked merit.