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

• Taylor v. List
  880 F.2d 1040· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-17 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a prisoner's Sixth Amendment right to self-representation includes the right to access law books and witnesses necessary to prepare a defense, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether prison officials violated this right.
• Reba Williams Dixon v. Md. State Admin. Bd. OF Election Laws
  878 F.2d 776· 4th Cir.· 1989-06-28 ·cited 11×
  Maryland's requirement that non-indigent write-in candidates pay a filing fee to be certified and have their votes reported impermissibly infringes on voters' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
• Nicholson v. CPC Int'l Inc.
  877 F.2d 221· 3d Cir.· 1989-06-02 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  An employee cannot prospectively waive their right to a judicial forum for claims arising under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) through an arbitration clause in an employment contract.
• Merritt v. Cnty. OF LOS Angeles
  875 F.2d 765· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the motion to amend based on federal notice requirements, and that the grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict for the County was proper due to insufficient evidence of a policy of inadequate training.
• Hamer v. City OF Atlanta
  872 F.2d 1521· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 11×
  The court affirmed the district court's validation of the employment examination, finding the validation study met professional standards despite challenges regarding statistical significance and supervisory rating inconsistencies.
• Lassiter v. Covington
  861 F.2d 680· 11th Cir.· 1988-12-08 ·cited 11×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff had a property interest in his employment based on contract or policy, and a liberty interest based on stigmatizing charges, precluding summary judgment.
• Edward and Gilda Bergman v. The City OF Atl. City
  860 F.2d 560· 3d Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 11×
  An order concluding one of two consolidated cases should not be considered final and appealable.
• Glick v. Dr. F.M. Henderson
  855 F.2d 536· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-25 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court concurred with the dismissal without prejudice, allowing for a new lawsuit to be filed.
• Mack v. Varelas
  835 F.2d 995· 2d Cir.· 1987-12-22 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that a state prisoner's civil rights action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which does not challenge the validity of his conviction or seek release, should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, but may be stayed pending the outcome of state co
• Stevens v. GAY
  792 F.2d 1000· 11th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that attorney's fees cannot be awarded against state officials who successfully assert qualified immunity, and that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint to add state departments as defendants.
• Sunshine State Serv. Corp. v. Dove Invs. OF Hillsborough
  468 So. 2d 281· Fla. 5th DCA· 1985-03-14 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  Sunshine State Service Corporation challenged a circuit court's stay of state court proceedings in favor of a subsequently filed federal action by the respondents. The Florida appellate court quashed the stay, holding that the state court lacked authority to stay the first-filed
• Jones v. Bd. OF Comm'rs OF the Ala. State BAR
  737 F.2d 996· 11th Cir.· 1984-07-30 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the limited right of review for an Alabama Bar applicant who has failed the examination five times, combined with the five-time limitation on taking the bar examination, violates due process.
• Forehand v. First Ala. Bank OF Dothan
  727 F.2d 1033· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-19 ·cited 11×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The district court did not abuse its discretion by abstaining from hearing the § 1983 claim pending resolution of state court proceedings.
• Bell v. Einer Mickelsen
  710 F.2d 611· 10th Cir.· 1983-04-01 ·cited 11×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the trial court erred in applying comparative negligence to intentional tort damages and in apportioning damages between defendants, but that the § 1983 waiver issue was not preserved for appeal.
• Johann Schmidt and Leland Pollard v. Oakland Unified Sch. Dist.
  662 F.2d 550· 9th Cir.· 1981-11-05 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the Oakland Unified School District's affirmative action plan (AAP) for construction contracts is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, and affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants.
• Uptown People's Cmty. Health Servs. Bd. OF Directors v. The Bd. OF Comm'rs OF Cook Cnty. & the Cnty. of Cook
  647 F.2d 727· 7th Cir.· 1981-04-21 ·cited 11×
  The district court lacked pendent jurisdiction over the state contract claims because no substantial federal claim was alleged, and therefore, the court should not have ruled on them.
• Sullivan v. Sgt. Ford
  609 F.2d 197· 5th Cir.· 1980-01-04 ·cited 11×·via § 1983 Suit
  Confiscation of inmate's money in excess of $15, found hidden, was reasonable and did not violate due process.
• Lister v. Comm'rs Court
  566 F.2d 490· 5th Cir.· 1978-01-17 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a special master who previously testified for a party should not have been appointed, and that plaintiffs failed to establish the jurisdictional amount for federal question jurisdiction, requiring remand.
• Davis v. United States
  439 F.2d 1118· 8th Cir.· 1971-02-22 ·cited 11×·via Violation Of Constitutional Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that neither the United States nor the Department of Public Welfare can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and the individual jail officials were not liable as the alleged tear gas exposure did not rise to a constitutional violation.
• Demich, Inc. v. Ferdon
  426 F.2d 643· 9th Cir.· 1970-05-13 ·cited 11×
  The court held that a prior adversary hearing is constitutionally required before allegedly obscene film, held for exhibition, can be seized, even if only a single copy is involved.
• Wilson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr.
  54 F.4th 652· 11th Cir.· 2022-11-29 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights)
  A Florida prison inmate and veteran challenged prison officials' seizure of his Veterans Administration disability benefits to satisfy prison liens and medical charges in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 5301, which protects VA benefits from attachment and seizure. The Eleventh Circuit a
• Wollschlaeger v. Governor of the State OF Fla.
  797 F.3d 859· 11th Cir.· 2015-07-28 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment and injunction, holding that Florida's Firearm Owners Privacy Act (the Act) does not facially violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments. The court found that the Act's provisions regard
• MacLean v. City of St. Petersburg
  194 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2002-03-18 ·cited 10×·via Violation Of First Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation under Title VII and the Florida Civil Rights Act, and that her speech was not a matter of public concern for First Amendment protection.
• Crenshaw v. City of Defuniak Springs
  891 F. Supp. 1548· N.D. Fla.· 1995-05-12 ·cited 10×·via Section 1983
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate discriminatory intent or a violation of clearly established constitutional law, and the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
• Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher
  972 F.2d 911· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 10×·via § 1983
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on both the procedural due process and First Amendment claims.
• Vaughan v. Ricketts
  950 F.2d 1464· 9th Cir.· 1991-12-13 ·cited 10×·via § 1983
  The court held that Koch's appeal timeliness must be determined by the district court, and affirmed the denial of the jnov motion regarding qualified immunity, finding the jury's verdicts reconcilable.
• Cody v. Henderson
  936 F.2d 715· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-26 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that while extensive delay in processing a criminal appeal can violate due process, unconditional release is not warranted unless the delay substantially prejudiced the outcome of the appeal. The district court erred in granting release without such a showing.
• Hamilton J. Whiting v. Maiolini
  921 F.2d 5· 1st Cir.· 1990-12-07 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that converting a motion for judgment on the pleadings to a motion for summary judgment without adequate notice and opportunity for discovery is improper.
• The Rector v. The City OF NEW York & the Landmarks Pres. Comm'n of the City of N.Y.
  914 F.2d 348· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-12 ·cited 10×
  The court held that New York City's Landmarks Law, as applied to the Church's Community House, does not impose an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion or effect a taking of property without just compensation, as the Church failed to prove it could not continue
• Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. OF Educ.
  913 F.2d 1064· 3d Cir.· 1990-09-05 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment sua sponte after motions in limine without proper notice and opportunity for the plaintiff to present evidence. It also held that the plaintiff's federal claims were not barred by claim preclusion due to a
• Hudson v. McMILLIAN
  929 F.2d 1014· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-31 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Excessive Force)
  A prisoner's claim for excessive force under the Eighth Amendment fails if the injury sustained is not significant.
• Prather v. Norman
  901 F.2d 915· 11th Cir.· 1990-05-18 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
• Barry v. Fowler
  902 F.2d 770· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-10 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that a directed verdict was proper because the officer had probable cause to arrest for auto tampering, and thus no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. However, the award of attorneys' fees to the defendant was reversed as the plaintiff's action was not frivolous.
• White v. Sergeant Roper
  901 F.2d 1501· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-01 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the officers used only reasonable force to retake custody of the inmate, and therefore, no constitutional injury occurred.
• Sammie Kelley, Jr. v. McGINNIS
  899 F.2d 612· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-05 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred by entering summary judgment against a pro se prisoner without providing him notice of the conversion of dismissal motions into summary judgment motions and an opportunity to respond.
• Wolf v. Larson
  897 F.2d 1409· 7th Cir.· 1990-03-16 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A plaintiff must establish a property interest, a legitimate claim of entitlement, to prevail under the due process clause in the employment context. A village ordinance combining the clerk and collector roles, without more, does not create a property interest in the collector po
• Lewis v. Parish OF Terrebonne
  894 F.2d 142· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 10×·via Section 1983
  The court held that the jury's finding of deliberate indifference was supported by evidence, the punitive damage award was valid, and qualified immunity did not apply. However, the case was remanded for determination of pre-death compensatory damages.
• Native Vill. OF Noatak v. Hoffman
  896 F.2d 1157· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's dismissal for lack of a substantial federal question, finding the federal claims frivolous and insubstantial.
• Collard v. Ky. Bd. OF Nursing
  896 F.2d 179· 6th Cir.· 1990-01-17 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the one-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions under Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.140(1)(a) applies to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims in Kentucky, and the plaintiff's action was untimely.
• Hedge v. Cnty. OF Tippecanoe
  890 F.2d 4· 7th Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 10×
  Individual defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the right to privacy from sexually explicit pre-employment polygraph questions was not clearly established at the time. However, the County is not entitled to qualified immunity.
• Acosta-Sepulveda v. Hernandez-Purcell
  889 F.2d 9· 1st Cir.· 1989-11-08 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiff received adequate procedural due process, but that her termination was politically motivated, violating her First Amendment rights.
• Zambrano v. City OF Tustin
  885 F.2d 1473· 9th Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that sanctions for mere negligence in failing to join the district court bar are improper, and attorneys' fees can only be awarded for bad faith or willful disobedience.
• Lile v. The Univ. OF Iowa Hosps. & Clinics
  886 F.2d 157· 8th Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the Hospital could credit state-funded care towards its Hill-Burton obligation, and that patients need not specifically request Hill-Burton benefits if their inability to pay is otherwise indicated.
• Frank Rosenberg, Inc. v. Tazewell Cnty.
  882 F.2d 1165· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-11 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiff lacked standing because he did not suffer a personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by the court.
• Flynn v. Merrick
  881 F.2d 446· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-07 ·cited 10×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  Shareholders lack standing to bring individual causes of action under RICO or for civil rights violations when their alleged injury is an indirect result of harm to the corporation.
• Messer v. Fran Curci
  881 F.2d 219· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 10×·via Violation Of First Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court should hold that the state's conduct violates the First Amendment and grant relief to the plaintiffs.
• Elzy v. Warden Roberson
  868 F.2d 793· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-30 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiff's § 1983 action was time-barred by Louisiana's one-year statute of limitations for delictual actions.
• Taylor v. Green
  868 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-22 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that while a jury's verdict on damages is generally inviolate, nominal damages can be awarded when a constitutional right is violated but actual damages are not proven.
• Howlett v. Rose
  537 So. 2d 706· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-02-01 ·cited 10×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The question of a state's sovereign immunity to an action brought in state court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is a matter of state law, and Florida has not waived its sovereign immunity for such actions except as provided by statute for traditional tort actions.
• Vigliotto v. Terry
  865 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-19 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a temporary three-day deprivation of an inmate's legal materials, without fault of the defendants, does not rise to a constitutional deprivation of access to the courts, and general allegations of harassment are insufficient to state an Eighth Amendment claim.