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
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to alter or amend judgment challenging the sufficiency of evidence and excessive damages, nor in denying reinstatement.
-
The court held that a National Guard member's claim for reinstatement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is nonjusticiable, as it unduly interferes with military decision-making and discipline.
-
Utah school districts are not arms of the state for Eleventh Amendment purposes and are therefore not immune from suits in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
-
The court held that the total exclusion of plaintiff's expert witnesses was an abuse of discretion, and that the introduction of evidence regarding the arrestee's guilt and prior drug use was improper.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the arresting officers' use of excessive force, precluding summary judgment based on qualified immunity for them, but that the supervisor (Chief Boyett) was entitled to qualified immunity as there was no affirmat
-
The court held that negligence in delaying a pretrial detainee's medication refill is insufficient to support a § 1983 claim, and a state statute without mandatory language does not create a protectable liberty interest against transfer.
-
818 F. Supp. 1504·
M.D. Fla.·
1993-04-13
·cited 2×
The court held that claims against school officials in their official capacities were dismissed, but claims against them individually and the School Board regarding due process and equal protection could proceed. Claims related to mandatory treatment referrals and stigmatization
-
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for constitutional violations against prison officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3).
-
The court held that the arresting officer was entitled to qualified immunity as a matter of law because it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that probable cause existed for the arrest.
-
The court held that a termination based on perceived disloyalty or incompatibility, without evidence of political motivation, does not violate the First Amendment, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
-
The court held that for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68, the "judgment finally obtained" must include pre-offer costs and attorney's fees when comparing it to the offer of judgment, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing an amended attorn
-
While the court found that the inmate's due process rights were violated by not being allowed to retain written disciplinary charges for 24 hours, it affirmed the dismissal because the right was not clearly established at the time, entitling the officials to qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the school bus driver, bus company president, and bus company were not liable under § 1983 because they were independent contractors and not state actors. The superintendent and school district were also not liable for failing to exhibit the 'deliberate indiff
-
983 F.2d 1267·
3d Cir.·
1993-01-20
·cited 2×
The court held that the Commonwealth failed to prove intentional discrimination under the Davis standard, and therefore, permanent injunctive relief was properly denied, and the preliminary injunction was correctly dissolved.
-
The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because their actions in involuntarily hospitalizing the plaintiff were objectively reasonable, thus not violating clearly established constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the district court did not err in denying the motion to amend the complaint or in granting summary judgment for the defendants, affirming the lower court's decision.
-
The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the plaintiff's demotion and transfer violated her constitutional rights, precluding summary judgment.
-
A terminated inmate law clerk lacks standing to assert a client's right of access to the courts when the client can perceive and address the loss of assistance themselves.
-
A dismissal pursuant to Connecticut's accelerated pretrial rehabilitation program is not a termination in favor of the accused for purposes of a section 1983 suit, and such a program's disposition does not permit claims for false imprisonment or false arrest.
-
The court held that a zero award for pain and suffering damages was shocking and unreasonable given the facts.
-
The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend the complaint and that the inmate's claims regarding inadequate recreation, unsanitary conditions, contaminated food, and denial of educational opportunities did not violate the Eighth o
-
The court held that the Board of Elections' eleventh-hour motions for a stay and expedited appeal, filed in disregard of procedural rules and after significant delay, constituted a misuse of the judicial process, warranting sanctions.
-
978 F.2d 1529·
9th Cir.·
1992-10-26
·cited 2×
The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of federal claims and summary judgment, finding no error in the dismissal of state law claims without prejudice.
-
The court held that the defendants did not violate the Constitution by continuing to detain the plaintiff because there was no evidence they knew of the writ of habeas corpus or intended to violate his rights, and state law violations are not actionable under § 1983.
-
A plaintiff must obtain actual relief on the merits to be considered a prevailing party for attorney's fees under Section 1988, and a zero-dollar verdict does not constitute such relief.
-
The court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the jury's verdict against the sheriff and county for violating the plaintiff's due process rights.
-
The court held that the district court erred in denying attorneys fees solely on the lack of a causal link to the merits decision, as the pendency of the § 1983 action itself may have served as a catalyst for the Board's non-enforcement agreement.
-
The Tax Injunction Act bars federal district courts from entertaining claims challenging state tax systems when a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy exists in state courts.
-
Incarcerated juveniles possess a constitutional right of access to the courts, which necessitates state provision of attorney access for claims related to their incarceration and constitutional rights, but not for purely state law matters.
-
The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding whether Officer Ludwig violated Sepulveda's clearly established constitutional right to bodily privacy, thus denying him qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing Rule 11 sanctions on defense counsel, vacating the order.
-
Parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity for actions taken in their official duties, but parole officers are entitled only to qualified immunity for such actions.
-
The court held that an arrest by de facto officers, appointed under color of authority despite procedural defects, does not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the failure to disclose these defects prior to trial does not violate the Sixth Amendment.
-
The court held that Pennsylvania Bar Admission Rule 203(a)(2)(ii) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause because it is rationally related to Pennsylvania's legitimate interest in securing mutual treatment for its attorneys seeking admission to other states' bars.
-
A district court's dismissal of a complaint for repeated and deliberate defiance of court orders is an appropriate sanction, and appellate courts must give deference to the district court's exercise of discretion.
-
The court held that sufficient evidence supported the jury's finding of a municipal policy or custom of deliberate indifference to police misconduct, and that the admission of prior violent acts was proper to show knowledge of propensity.
-
The court held that the termination of home health care providers under the Medicaid program, which resulted in the cessation of benefits for recipients without prior notice or hearing, constituted a termination of benefits triggering procedural due process rights under the Medic
-
The court held that a guilty plea to criminal charges arising from the same incident moots a subsequent appeal regarding the propriety of prison disciplinary proceedings, and that the disciplinary board's decision was supported by some evidence and did not violate due process.
-
The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the notices of appeal were sufficient, the Eighth Amendment claim was properly assessed using the malicious intent standard, and the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the state law claim due to the intentional nature of
-
The dissenting judge believes the officials' actions were not objectively reasonable, despite the majority's reliance on qualified immunity.
-
The court held that the supervisor was not entitled to qualified immunity and that the inmate's claim regarding actual damages causation was not preserved for appeal.
-
The court held that a state court's decision on constitutional claims has collateral estoppel effect in a subsequent federal § 1983 action, even if the state proceedings were required by comity considerations for federal habeas corpus.
-
953 F.2d 549·
9th Cir.·
1992-01-09
·cited 2×
Pursuing a remedy before a state administrative agency for an unfair labor practice does not preclude a subsequent federal court action for violation of federal constitutional rights.
-
The court held that the revocation of an inmate's correspondence privilege was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests and that no clearly established liberty interest existed for due process claims, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
-
The Eighth Amendment governs a prisoner's claim of excessive force used to prevent escape, and the officer's actions in shooting the escaping inmate did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
-
950 F.2d 316·
6th Cir.·
1991-12-02
·cited 2×
The court held that a public employee's emotional distress and humiliation can constitute compensable injury for First Amendment and equal protection claims, and that First Amendment rights are not dependent on having an entitlement to a position.
-
11 U.S.C. § 362(h) creates a cause of action that can be enforced after bankruptcy proceedings have terminated, but summary judgment was appropriate for most defendants due to lack of evidence of willful violation.
-
The court held that imposing costs against indigent prisoners for non-frivolous appeals violates equal protection because it is not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose.
-
The court held that the victim's estate could not bring a federal due process claim under § 1983 because the state did not create the danger or hold the victim in custody, and that a state law negligence claim against the deputy presented a material issue of fact regarding breach
-
The court held that retaliatory cell searches and conduct violations can constitute an Eighth Amendment violation, even without physical pain, and that the prison guard was not entitled to qualified immunity.