Moor et al. v. County of Alameda et al.

In a 6–3 opinion by Justice Kagan, the Court held that probable cause for one charge does not categorically defeat a claim that another contemporaneous charge lacked probable cause and caused a seizure.

The court held that, to demonstrate a favorable termination of a criminal prosecution for malicious prosecution, a plaintiff need not show that the criminal prosecution ended with some affirmative indication of innocence.

In a 6–3 ruling, the Court held that the 3-year statute of limitations for a fabrication of evidence civil lawsuit under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act begins to run when the criminal case ends in the plaintiff's favor.

The Court determined, by a vote of 4–2, that non-U.S. citizens detained in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks cannot recover monetary damages from high level federal officials for the conditions of their confinement.

The Court held that "special circumstances" cannot excuse an inmate's failure to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit under the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, but clarified that inmates are required to exhaust only administrative remedies that are genuinely available.

The Court held in a 5–4 decision that a pretrial detainee must prove only that force used by police is excessive according to an objective standard, not that a police officer was subjectively aware that the force used was unreasonable.

The Court held that it had jurisdiction and that police officers who fired shots at a driver during a high-speed car chase did not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.· AI-written

The Court held that while Title VII applies a mixed motive discrimination framework to claims of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2), that framework did not apply to claims of retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3.

The Supreme Court upheld the Seventh Circuit's decision in a 5–4 opinion written by Samuel Alito, rejecting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's interpretation of who counts as a supervisor.

In a dispute over where "mixed case" appeals involving wrongful termination and discrimination claims go from the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Court unanimously held that the statute clearly provided for appeal to a federal district court.· AI-written

The court held that police officers are entitled to qualified immunity from civil suit for allegedly violating a constitutional right if, at the time of an arrest, it was not clearly established that an arrest supported by probable cause could give rise to the alleged rights violation.

The Court held that a private contractor temporarily retained by the government to carry out its work is entitled to seek qualified immunity from suit under Section 1983.

The court held that a witness in a grand-jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity from suit under Section 1983 as a witness who testifies at trial.

The court held that state officers are entitled to qualified immunity after seizing unrelated evidence from someone who was not under investigation when the error was not immediately apparent based on the text of the search warrant.

The majority decision, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, held that the petitioner could not sue Texas state officials in their official capacity for damages under the RLUIPA, affirming a lower court ruling.

In a case over a man's wrongful conviction after prosecutors suppressed exculpatory evidence, the Court reversed a $14 million jury award, holding a district attorney's office cannot be liable under Section 1983 for failure to train based on a single Brady violation.· AI-written

In a dispute over whether a prisoner seeking biological DNA material for testing to challenge his conviction must use a civil rights suit or a habeas corpus petition, the Court held that the civil rights path was appropriate.· AI-written

The Court held that a party may not appeal a denial of summary judgment after a district court has conducted a full trial on the merits.

In a Section 1983 suit over municipal liability, the Court ruled that the "policy or custom" requirement from Monell applied regardless of whether the relief sought was monetary or prospective.· AI-written

The Court held that a New York law preventing state trial courts from hearing claims for money damages against prison employees whether based on federal or state law violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

The court held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 based on management tasks such as their supervision or training of subordinates and their information-system organization.

The Court took to the unusual step of asking the parties to argue whether past precedent should be overturned.

In a §1983 suit seeking damages for a false arrest followed by criminal proceedings, the Court held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the claimant is detained pursuant to legal process, not when the charges are dropped.· AI-written

The Court ruled unanimously that an Eighth Amendment challenge to the method of execution properly raised a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which provides a cause of action for civil rights violations, rather than under the habeas corpus provisions.

In a case about racial discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the Court ruled unanimously that agents of contracting parties lack personal rights under those contracts and so cannot state a section 1981 claim.· AI-written

The United States Supreme Court held that the Telecommunications Act (TCA) precluded damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it provided a comprehensive remedial scheme.

The court held unanimously that an appeal of proposed execution procedures is different from a habeas corpus petition because it is not an appeal of a conviction or sentence.

The Court ruled that qualified immunity did not apply to a lawsuit challenging the Alabama Department of Corrections's use of the "hitching post," a punishment in which inmates were immobilized for long periods.· AI-written

The Court held that a §1983 plaintiff seeking damages for an allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment must prove the conviction or sentence was reversed, expunged, declared invalid by a state tribunal, or called into question by a federal writ of habeas corpus.· AI-written

The Court held that there is no substantive due process violation that creates liability under Section 1983 when the police arrests someone for conduct that is not unlawful.

The court held that Section 1985(3) of The Civil Rights Act of 1871 does not provide a federal cause of action against persons obstructing access to abortion clinics.

The court held that private citizens are not entitled to qualified immunity from Section 1983 suits over misusing an unconstitutional public process merely because they presumed the process was constitutional.

The Court held that a prosecutor was absolutely immune from damages for positions taken at a probable cause hearing for a search warrant, but not immune for giving police legal advice about the legality of an investigative practice.· AI-written

The court held that a city's conditioning of an entity's franchise renewal of the settlement of a labor dispute is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act.

The Court held that States and their officials acting in their official capacity are not persons when sued for monetary damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The Court determined that an objective reasonableness standard should apply to a civilian's claim that law enforcement officials used excessive force in the course of making an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of their person.

The Court held that Jewish people can file racial discrimination suits.

The court held that the prosecutor may offer a plea bargain to a defendant in exchange for the defendant's promise not to sue the state under Section 1983, and that contract may be enforceable.

The Court clarified its earlier Monell decision and established that municipalities can be held liable even for a single decision that is improperly made.· AI-written

The Court held that Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 did not authorize a convicted state defendant to assert a claim for damages against a police officer for giving perjured testimony at the defendant's criminal trial.

The Supreme Court of the United States held that individuals who bribed a judge for an injunction were not protected by judicial immunity and therefore could be held liable for the damages resulting from the injunction.

The court held that a municipality has no immunity from liability under Section 1983 flowing from its constitutional violations and may not assert the good faith of its officers as a defense to such liability.

The Court overruled Monroe v. Pape by holding that a local government is a "person" subject to suit under Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code: Civil action for deprivation of rights.

The Court held that the state-allowed re-sale provision did not constitute state action, and thus, the plaintiff did not possess a colorable federal due process claim.

The Supreme Court held that the judge was immune from being sued for issuing the order because it was issued as a judicial function.

A sharply divided Court held that the plaintiff, whom the local police chief had named an "active shoplifter," suffered no deprivation of liberty resulting from injury to his reputation.

District attorneys or prosecutors were found to have full immunity from civil suits resulting from their government duties.

The Court considered federal civil rights law applied to constitutional violations by city employees and held that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 could be used to sue state officers who violated a plaintiff's constitutional rights.· AI-written

The court held that the United States Court of Claims was an Article I tribunal.

The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 241, which protects citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws, may be applied only to federal cases and is not available to state governments.· AI-written