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

• The SEA Ranch Ass'n v. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commissions
  537 F.2d 1058· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-10 ·cited 46×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that abstention was proper for claims of project-wide exemption under the California Coastal Zone Act, but individual parcel exemption claims lacked a case or controversy and should have been dismissed.
• Chambers v. Omaha Pub. Sch. Dist.
  536 F.2d 222· 8th Cir.· 1976-05-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25-219, a three-year statute of limitations for actions based on federal statutes, applies to the plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and Title VI, and that the plaintiff's action was untimely filed.
• Silver v. Cormier
  529 F.2d 161· 10th Cir.· 1976-01-30 ·cited 46×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that a public official's threat to withhold legally required payments if a citizen exercises their right of access to the courts constitutes a burden on constitutional rights, and that punitive damages were properly awarded based on the evidence.
• Nazareth Gates v. Collier
  489 F.2d 298· 5th Cir.· 1973-12-05 ·cited 46×
  The court held that an award of attorney's fees against state officials in their official capacities, payable from state funds, is permissible and not barred by sovereign immunity or the Eleventh Amendment, especially when their conduct was unreasonably obstinate.
• Meredith v. Allen Cnty. WAR Mem'l Hosp. Comm'n & Its Individual Members
  397 F.2d 33· 6th Cir.· 1968-06-19 ·cited 46×
• Mansell v. Saunders
  372 F.2d 573· 5th Cir.· 1967-02-13 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the complaint stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, establishing federal jurisdiction.
• Stanley v. City OF Dalton
  219 F.3d 1280· 11th Cir.· 2000-07-26 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's denial of qualified immunity to Police Chief James D. Chadwick, finding that he was entitled to immunity from Police Lieutenant Jerry M. Stanley's First Amendment retaliation claim. The court concluded that while Stanley's speech
• Caban-Wheeler v. William Elsea, M.D.
  904 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1990-07-10 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court erred in adopting the Special Master's Report without fully addressing direct evidence of discrimination and making complete analytical findings, necessitating a remand.
• Ustrak v. Fairman
  781 F.2d 573· 7th Cir.· 1986-01-09 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Civil Rights Violations
  The court held that a prisoner's claim of racial discrimination in disciplinary punishment and job denial failed due to lack of evidence, and while retaliation for complaints was proven, the damages awarded were excessive and unsupported.
• Rondell Harrison and Sharon Harrison v. Springdale Water & Sewer Comm'n
  780 F.2d 1422· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-07 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the plaintiffs sufficiently stated a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for infringement of their constitutional right of access to the courts, but failed to state a cause of action under § 1985. The court also held the claim was not barred by res judicata
• Pfeil v. Rogers
  757 F.2d 850· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-08 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance, disregarding late-filed materials, and granting summary judgment based on the evidence presented. However, it erred in disallowing affidavits solely for lack of a notarial seal and in re
• Rennie v. Klein
  720 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1983-10-13 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  Involuntarily committed mental patients have a qualified constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication. This right is protected by the Due Process Clause, which requires that any decision to administer such drugs against a patient's will must be based on the "profession
• David D. Daly, M.D., Ph.D. v. Charles C. Sprague, M.D.
  675 F.2d 716· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-14 ·cited 45×
  The court held that the district court improperly granted summary judgment on the First Amendment claim because it failed to consider it, remanding for that purpose. However, it affirmed summary judgment on the Fourteenth Amendment claims, finding the plaintiff failed to establis
• United Carolina Bank CTA of the Est. of Seymour I. Somberg v. Bd. OF Regents OF Stephen F. Austin State Univ.
  665 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-11 ·cited 45×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The Eleventh Amendment bars suits for monetary relief against state university officials in their official capacities, and Stephen F. Austin State University is an arm of the state. Individual defendants may be liable for constitutional violations if they knew or should have know
• Boraas v. The Vill. OF Belle Terre
  476 F.2d 806· 2d Cir.· 1973-02-27 ·cited 45×
  The dissenting judge argues that the Village's zoning ordinance is a rational means to achieve legitimate zoning objectives and should be upheld.
• Santiago-Negron v. Modesto Castro-Davila
  865 F.2d 431· 1st Cir.· 1989-01-11 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that a new trial on damages is required due to erroneous jury instructions on due process, but the jury's finding of political discrimination stands. Reinstatement is permissible despite illegal hiring practices.
• Aurea E. Vazquez Rios v. Colon
  819 F.2d 319· 1st Cir.· 1987-04-08 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the law regarding 'confidential' employees was not clearly established at the time of the Governor's discharge of domestic staff, thus he should be granted limited immunity.
• Culebras Enters. Corp. v. Rios
  813 F.2d 506· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-11 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiffs' claim for damages for a regulatory taking is premature because they have not exhausted available remedies in Puerto Rico courts, and that claims against officials in their official capacities are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
• Pacheco v. Gonzalez
  809 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because it was clearly established that transitory employees are protected from politically motivated non-renewal, but they were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process c
• Hipolito Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Munoz
  808 F.2d 138· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of First Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority improperly allowed the appellant to raise new issues on appeal, which constitutes impermissible 'sandbagging' and misinterprets established law regarding qualified immunity.
• Kunzelman v. Gervase Thompson
  799 F.2d 1172· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-25 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that collateral estoppel did not apply because the defendants were not parties or privies to the prior state action, and that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that inmates lacked adequate access to the courts through the public defender system.
• French v. Owens
  777 F.2d 1250· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-26 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights)
  The court held that while overcrowding, double-celling, inhumane restraints, inadequate medical care, and poor kitchen facilities violated the Eighth Amendment, the district court erred in mandating specific compliance with fire/safety codes and in ordering equal access to rehabi
• Brasslett v. Cota
  761 F.2d 827· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-16 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the plaintiff's discharge for speech made during a television interview violated his First Amendment rights, reversing the district court's decision on this claim.
• Farrar v. Cain
  756 F.2d 1148· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 44×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that failure to object to jury instructions or interrogatories generally precludes appellate review, except for fundamental error, and affirmed the denial of damages except for nominal damages against one defendant.
• Hayes v. Shelby Mem'l Hosp.
  726 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1984-03-16 ·cited 44×
  A hospital's policy of firing a pregnant x-ray technician to protect her fetus from radiation exposure constitutes facial discrimination under the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, and the hospital failed to establish a BFOQ or business necessity defense.
• Miofsky v. Superior Court OF the State OF Cal.
  703 F.2d 332· 9th Cir.· 1983-01-03 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  A federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, even when the alleged infringement of rights arises from state court proceedings, and res judicata does not bar claims summarily denied by state appellate courts.
• Robbins v. The Dist. Court OF Worth Cnty.
  592 F.2d 1015· 8th Cir.· 1979-02-21 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the appellants' civil rights action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the issues and causes of action were the same as those litigated in prior state court proceedings.
• Perez v. BOU
  575 F.2d 21· 1st Cir.· 1978-05-05 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the defendant official was not immune from liability for summary suspensions, that plaintiffs were entitled to attorneys' fees under § 1988, and that nominal damages were appropriate for the intangible loss of civil rights.
• Burt v. The Bd. OF Trs. OF Edgefield Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  521 F.2d 1201· 4th Cir.· 1975-08-06 ·cited 44×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court reversed the judgment because the defendants were denied their constitutional right to a jury trial.
• DRY Creek Lodge, Inc. v. The United States
  515 F.2d 926· 10th Cir.· 1975-05-09 ·cited 44×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction and on the merits without proper notice and a full hearing, as the plaintiffs' allegations sufficiently invoked federal jurisdiction.
• Spence v. Patience Latting
  512 F.2d 93· 10th Cir.· 1975-02-26 ·cited 44×·via § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal claims were barred by res judicata because he had the opportunity to litigate them in prior state court actions.
• DOE v. Bellin Mem'l Hosp.
  479 F.2d 756· 7th Cir.· 1973-06-01 ·cited 44×
  A private hospital's refusal to perform abortions, even if it receives federal or state funding and is state-regulated, does not violate 42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless the state directly influences or participates in the decision.
• WU v. Thomas
  847 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1988-06-07 ·cited 43×·via Discrimination Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination under Title VII and Section 1983, and that pay disparities were justified by factors other than sex under the Equal Pay Act.
• Kompare v. Robert Stein, M.D.
  801 F.2d 883· 7th Cir.· 1986-09-04 ·cited 43×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Violation Of Constitutional Rights
  The court held that medical examiners are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions in performing autopsies and determining causes of death, as their conduct did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. A violation of a county ordinance does not automatically
• Sun Cha Byrd v. Clark
  783 F.2d 1002· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the excessive force claim against Officer Black and in granting summary judgment for Officer Whitley on the failure to intervene claim, but affirmed summary judgment for other defendants on other claims.
• Patzner v. Burkett
  779 F.2d 1363· 8th Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 43×·via Violation Of Civil Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that the deputies were not entitled to qualified immunity for the warrantless home arrest, and that the use of excessive force presented a question of fact for the jury. However, the county was not liable due to lack of notice of prior misconduct.
• Concordia v. Bendekovic
  693 F.2d 1073· 11th Cir.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 43×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the action based on res judicata without sufficient record evidence, vacating the judgment and remanding for further proceedings.
• Dorothea Yoggerst v. Stan Stewart
  623 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 43×·via Violation Of First Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983
  The court held that a reprimand for a casual, private comment about a supervisor's potential termination, made in a context of agency turmoil, could constitute an infringement of First Amendment rights, and that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding such infringement
• Holley v. Abe Lavine
  605 F.2d 638· 2d Cir.· 1979-07-13 ·cited 43×
  The Eleventh Amendment does not bar an award of retroactive welfare benefits against a County Social Services Commissioner, as a county is not an 'arm of the State' for these purposes. The court also affirmed the award of attorney fees.
• Walton v. Eaton Corp.
  563 F.2d 66· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-18 ·cited 43×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Violations
  The court held that a plaintiff who waives the right to a jury trial in an initial complaint cannot revive that right by filing a second, substantially identical complaint, even if it demands a jury trial and alleges new damages.
• In re Estelle
  516 F.2d 480· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-24 ·cited 43×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action For Deprivation Of Rights)
  Mandamus is inappropriate because the trial court's decision on the United States' right to intervene, even if erroneous, was not a usurpation of power and the petitioner suffers no irreparable harm.
• Afro Am. Patrolmens League v. Duck
  503 F.2d 294· 6th Cir.· 1974-09-26 ·cited 43×
  The court held that the Toledo Police Department's promotion system, including service requirements and seniority bonuses, perpetuated past discrimination and violated civil rights statutes and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the district court's specific order reducing all
• Jewelle Gresham v. Chambers
  501 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1974-08-13 ·cited 43×
  The court held that absent proof of discrimination, informal word-of-mouth recruiting is permissible for staff appointments, and Title VII does not preempt claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
• Easter House v. Felder
  910 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-14 ·cited 42×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiff's procedural due process rights were not violated because the state provided adequate post-deprivation remedies for the alleged errors in implementing its civil commitment scheme, and the specific errors were not foreseeable.
• Eldridge Lovelace v. Dall
  820 F.2d 223· 7th Cir.· 1987-05-18 ·cited 42×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the plaintiff validly consented to a magistrate trial, the denial of appointed counsel was not an abuse of discretion, and the plaintiff waived his right to a jury trial by failing to object to a bench trial.
• Corn v. City OF Lauderdale Lakes
  816 F.2d 1514· 11th Cir.· 1987-05-14 ·cited 42×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Damages
  The court held that the plaintiff's Section 1983 action for damages was ripe because Florida law does not provide an adequate state remedy for injuries caused by confiscatory zoning ordinances.
• DeSHANEY v. Winnebago Cnty. Dep't OF Soc. Servs.
  812 F.2d 298· 7th Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 42×
  The state's failure to protect a child from private violence, even if negligent or reckless, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause unless the state created the danger or assumed a custodial relationship that increased the risk of harm.
• Smith v. The City OF Fontana
  818 F.2d 1411· 9th Cir.· 1987-01-06 ·cited 42×·via 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Action
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the plaintiffs' section 1983 claims. The Parratt doctrine, which limits section 1983 actions based on random and unauthorized deprivations when adequate post-deprivation remedies exist, applies only to procedural due proc
• Wali v. Coughlin
  754 F.2d 1015· 2d Cir.· 1985-02-05 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the Commissioner's refusal to allow inmates to receive a critical report on prison conditions, without applying established censorship guidelines or demonstrating a clear and present danger, violated their rights.
• Irby v. Sullivan
  737 F.2d 1418· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-06 ·cited 42×
  The court held that Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for retaliation claims, precluding a section 1983 claim for such violations, but section 1981 can be a basis for a retaliation claim. The court also found that public employees without a property interest in employment a