Violation Of First Amendment Rights Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

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

• Knapp v. Whitaker
  757 F.2d 827· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-05 ·cited 75×
  The court held that the school district's actions retaliated against the teacher for protected speech, but affirmed the denial of punitive damages and remanded for recalculation of compensatory damages.
• Hipolito Rodriguez Rodriguez v. Munoz
  808 F.2d 138· 1st Cir.· 1986-12-18 ·cited 44×
  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.
• Dorothea Yoggerst v. Stan Stewart
  623 F.2d 35· 7th Cir.· 1980-06-16 ·cited 43×
  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
• Martinelli v. Dugger
  817 F.2d 1499· 11th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 33×
  Prison grooming and dietary regulations are rationally related to substantial government interests and are not unconstitutional infringements on inmate religious freedom when balanced against penological objectives. The medical exemption for beards is not a less restrictive alter
• Acorn and Liz Wolff v. City OF Phoenix & the Chief of Police of the City of Phoenix
  798 F.2d 1260· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a Phoenix ordinance prohibiting solicitation from vehicle occupants is a constitutional time, place, and manner regulation because it is content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve significant government interests in public safety and traffic flow, and leaves
• Fact Concerts, Inc. v. The City OF Newport
  626 F.2d 1060· 1st Cir.· 1980-06-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in denying defendants' motions, allowing certain cross-examination, or instructing the jury on punitive damages against the City, affirming the jury's verdict.
• Bright v. Louie B. Nunn
  448 F.2d 245· 6th Cir.· 1971-09-24 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Governor and University President acted within their authority in imposing restrictions during campus disorders, and these actions did not violate students' First Amendment rights.
• Berger v. Battaglia
  779 F.2d 992· 4th Cir.· 1985-12-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that conditioning continued employment on an officer's cessation of offensive off-duty public entertainment performances, even if potentially disruptive to community relations, violates the First Amendment when there is no showing of direct disruption to the depart
• McBEE v. JIM Hogg Cnty.
  703 F.2d 834· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 22×
  The court held that in a small county sheriff's office, deputies and dispatchers may fall within the Elrod-Branti exception, allowing dismissal based on political affiliation due to the need for loyalty and confidence. The court also found the district court's factual findings re
• Rosewitz v. Patience Latting
  689 F.2d 175· 10th Cir.· 1982-09-27 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the city's grievance procedure, which denied an employee the right to an attorney, confrontation, and cross-examination, did not violate procedural due process, but the denial of the defendant's motion for attorney's fees without a hearing was an error.
• Gilpin v. Am. Fed'n OF State, Cnty., & Mun. Emps., AFL-CIO
  875 F.2d 1310· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-24 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate harm from the union's inadequate notices regarding agency fees, and thus were not entitled to restitution or punitive damages. Class certification was also denied due to a conflict of interest.
• Mazus v. Dept. OF Transp.
  629 F.2d 870· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-28 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in allowing political patronage as a defense to a Title VII discrimination claim, as such a defense lacks a nexus to legitimate business needs.
• Cole v. Flick
  758 F.2d 124· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 16×
  A prison regulation requiring inmates to keep their hair above the collar does not violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause, as the justifications for the rule (identification, contraband, homosexual predation) are reasonably related to legitimate penological interests
• MacLean v. City of St. Petersburg
  194 F. Supp. 2d 1290· M.D. Fla.· 2002-03-18 ·cited 10×
  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.
• Messer v. Fran Curci
  881 F.2d 219· 6th Cir.· 1989-07-25 ·cited 10×
  The court should hold that the state's conduct violates the First Amendment and grant relief to the plaintiffs.
• Smith v. Barton
  914 F.2d 1330· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs' First Amendment claims under § 1983 were not precluded by the Rehabilitation Act, and that plaintiffs are entitled to a jury trial on their § 504 claims due to seeking legal remedies.
• Amato v. Wilentz
  952 F.2d 742· 3d Cir.· 1991-12-30 ·cited 6×
  The court held that Essex County lacked third-party standing to assert Warner Brothers' First Amendment rights because Warner Brothers faced no significant obstacle to bringing its own suit.
• Harper v. Wallingford
  877 F.2d 728· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that prison officials were justified in withholding mail from an inmate when the material was reasonably related to legitimate penological interests, specifically prison security and inmate rehabilitation.
• GAY Student Servs. v. Tex. A & M Univ.
  737 F.2d 1317· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-03 ·cited 6×
  A state university's denial of official recognition to a gay student organization based on its message or perceived association with illegal conduct violates the First Amendment.
• Vacca v. Barletta
  933 F.2d 31· 1st Cir.· 1991-05-09 ·cited 4×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the reasonableness of the defendant's actions in removing the plaintiff from the meeting, thus precluding summary judgment.
• Agapita Rosa Velazquez v. Figueroa-Gomez
  996 F.2d 425· 1st Cir.· 1993-06-09 ·cited 2×
  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.
• Mirabal v. Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-12-17
  The court held that transfer to the Southern District of Florida was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and the operative facts occurred there.
• Yasir v. Sawyer
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-08-04
  The court held that the facility failed to demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest in prohibiting outgoing mail from current residents to former residents.
• Dayton v. City of Marco Island
  M.D. Fla.· 2020-05-26
  The court held that the defendant official was not entitled to qualified immunity at the pleading stage, but the municipality was not liable under Monell because the alleged violation was a single incident, not a policy or custom.
• Cagle v. Gilley
  957 F.2d 1347· 6th Cir.· 1992-04-24
  The court held that the sheriff was entitled to qualified immunity because the deputies' First Amendment rights regarding political affiliation for their positions were not clearly established at the time of their non-reappointment.