Violation Of Due Process Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

15 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Eisen v. Eastman
  421 F.2d 560· 2d Cir.· 1969-11-28 ·cited 160×
  The court held that the district court correctly dismissed the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the plaintiff's alleged harm was purely economic, not a deprivation of personal liberty. It also affirmed the district court's finding of a sufficient jurisdictional amount under 2
• Hayes v. Thompson
  637 F.2d 483· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-18 ·cited 41×
  Prison officials are not entitled to immunity from monetary damages if the constitutional right infringed was clearly established and they knew or should have known of the right and their conduct violated it.
• Colon v. Lieutenant Bruce Schneider
  899 F.2d 660· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-12 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Wisconsin administrative regulations governing the use of mace do not create a federally protected liberty interest for inmates, and therefore, the inmate's due process claim fails.
• Mims v. Shapp
  744 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the prisoner's prolonged administrative segregation, reviewed through subjective evaluations by prison officials, did not violate his due process rights, and thus the damages award was reversed.
• Ishmael Muslim ALI v. Sims
  788 F.2d 954· 3d Cir.· 1986-04-21 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing severe sanctions under Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, which led to a grant of partial summary judgment, and that the plaintiff's fugitive status precludes him from seeking a new trial.
• Sourbeer v. Robinson
  791 F.2d 1094· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the law regarding the due process rights of unsentenced prisoners in administrative segregation was not clearly established at the time of the conduct.
• Jones v. Kirkland
  696 So. 2d 1249· Fla. 4th DCA· 1997-06-25 ·cited 12×
  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
• Dist. Props. Assocs. v. The Dist. OF Columbia
  743 F.2d 21· D.C. Cir.· 1984-09-07 ·cited 8×
  The District Court erred in dismissing the landlords' claims based on exclusive jurisdiction and the principle of comity (Younger abstention).
• Huber Pontiac, Inc. v. Whitler
  585 F.2d 817· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The federal court lacked jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act to enjoin state tax assessment procedures, as a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy was available in state courts.
• Walter v. Torres
  917 F.2d 1379· 5th Cir.· 1990-11-29 ·cited 6×
  Parole board members have absolute immunity for adjudicative functions (applying rules to individual cases) but only qualified immunity for administrative functions (enacting rules).
• Benitez v. Wolff
  985 F.2d 662· 2d Cir.· 1993-02-03 ·cited 2×
  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.
• Turner v. Upton Cnty.
  967 F.2d 181· 5th Cir.· 1992-08-05 ·cited 2×
  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.
• GAN v. The City OF NEW York
  996 F.2d 522· 2d Cir.· 1993-06-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that Assistant District Attorney Rettler was entitled to absolute immunity for decisions regarding prosecution and qualified immunity for investigative actions, and that claims against District Attorney Morgenthau were properly dismissed.
• Zavaro v. Coughlin
  970 F.2d 1148· 2d Cir.· 1992-07-31
  A prison disciplinary hearing officer is not entitled to qualified immunity when adjudicating an inmate guilty without any reliable evidence, violating the inmate's clearly established due process right to 'some evidence' supporting the finding.
• Hayes v. Phoenix-Talent Sch. Dist. NO. 4
  893 F.2d 235· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-08
  A probationary teacher's dismissal for reasons of incompetence does not implicate a liberty interest, and therefore does not trigger procedural due process requirements.