42 U.S.C. § 1983 Claim For Deprivation Of Property Without Due Process

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

• Bonner v. Coughlin
  545 F.2d 565· 7th Cir.· 1976-10-28 ·cited 125×
  The court held that the negligence of prison guards causing the loss of a prisoner's transcript was not a state deprivation of property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment, nor was it action 'under color of state law' for purposes of Section 1983.
• Burtnieks v. The City OF NEW York
  716 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the existence of an emergency and the impracticality of a pre-deprivation hearing were material facts that were contested and required further factual development.
• Vicory v. Walton
  721 F.2d 1062· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-30 ·cited 76×
  The court should reverse and enter judgment for defendants based on prosecutorial immunity and the inapplicability of Parratt v. Taylor.
• Chongris v. Bd. OF Appeals OF the Town OF Andover
  811 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state federally cognizable causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as their claims regarding building permit revocation and victualler's license denial did not violate due process or constitutional rights.
• Tubbesing v. Arnold
  742 F.2d 401· 8th Cir.· 1984-08-22 ·cited 50×
  The court held that the Board members are entitled to qualified immunity on the claims for money damages because the plaintiff did not have a clearly established property interest in her employment and did not establish a deprivation of liberty.
• Piatt v. Ellis MacDOUGALL
  773 F.2d 1032· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-08 ·cited 43×
  A state court judgment does not bar a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if the state court did not address the claim on its merits, and a prisoner's claim for unpaid wages is not barred by res judicata if the state failed to provide a pre-deprivation hearing for a deliberate p
• Sullivan v. Town OF Salem
  805 F.2d 81· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-10 ·cited 42×
  A landowner has a constitutionally protected property interest in receiving certificates of occupancy if they meet all requirements, and denial solely for unaccepted roads violates due process. However, there is no constitutional right to compel a municipality to accept dedicated
• Thornton v. Barnes
  890 F.2d 1380· 7th Cir.· 1989-12-04 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a policy-making public office, even if unpaid, is not 'property' protected by the Due Process Clause, and federal courts should not interpret state law or constitutional issues unnecessarily.
• Bartley Braden v. Tex. A & M Univ. Sys.
  636 F.2d 90· 5th Cir.· 1981-02-02 ·cited 25×
  The court held that although the district court erred in applying the wrong state statute of limitations, the plaintiff's Section 1983 claims were time-barred under the correct statute.
• Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea
  959 F.2d 349· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-23 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was time-barred because he knew or should have known of his termination more than one year before filing suit.
• Duncan v. Mr. & Mrs. Harold Peck
  752 F.2d 1135· 6th Cir.· 1985-01-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal § 1983 action challenging the constitutionality of state procedures, and that pursuing state judicial remedies can constitute action under color of state law.
• Culbertson v. Leland
  528 F.2d 426· 9th Cir.· 1975-10-03 ·cited 18×
  The seizure of a tenant's property by an innkeeper under state innkeeper's lien statutes, without a security interest in the property, constitutes state action.
• Nat'l Commc'n Sys., Inc. v. Mich. Pub. Serv. Comm'n
  789 F.2d 370· 6th Cir.· 1986-04-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for deprivation of property without due process because they did not plead the inadequacy of state remedies. The court also held that the equal protection claim under § 1985(3) failed because the plaint
• Giglio v. Dunn
  732 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 16×
  A pre-coercion hearing is not constitutionally required when a post-deprivation remedy, such as an Article 78 proceeding, is available and provides a meaningful opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of a resignation.
• RR Vill. Ass'n, Inc. v. Denver Sewer Corp. & Town of Roxbury (N.Y.)
  826 F.2d 1197· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-26 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge argues that the court erred by not notifying the New York Attorney General of the constitutional challenge to N.Y.Transp.Corp.L. § 121 and by failing to consider abstention under state law.
• Holman v. Hilton
  712 F.2d 854· 3d Cir.· 1983-07-06 ·cited 12×
  A state statute barring prisoners from filing tort claims until release from confinement violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment if no adequate alternative administrative remedies exist.
• Phillips v. Money
  503 F.2d 990· 7th Cir.· 1974-09-13 ·cited 12×
  Detention of a vehicle by a private mechanic pursuant to a common law or statutory lien does not constitute state action under the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore cannot form the basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Huxall v. First State Bank
  842 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging property deprivation without due process must demonstrate they were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard or avail themselves of available state remedies.
• Fusco v. The State OF Conn.
  815 F.2d 201· 2d Cir.· 1987-03-26 ·cited 10×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they did not allege a deprivation of a constitutionally protected property interest.
• Secret v. Brierton
  584 F.2d 823· 7th Cir.· 1978-10-13 ·cited 10×
  Prisoners must exhaust available internal prison grievance procedures before filing a § 1983 claim for deprivation of tangible personal property of no great monetary value.
• Small Engine Shop, Inc. v. Concetta Cangelosi Cascio
  878 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Louisiana Revised Statute § 13:3886, as interpreted by the district court to be the sole mechanism for actual notice in foreclosure actions, violates the Due Process Clause by impermissibly shifting the entire burden of ensuring notice to the property owner.
• Lynn C. Lowe, M.D. v. H. Denman Scott, M.D.
  959 F.2d 323· 1st Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to establish a constitutionally protected property interest in the hospital privilege to supervise nurse midwives, affirming the directed verdict but on different grounds.
• Russell v. Dunston
  896 F.2d 664· 2d Cir.· 1990-02-12 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge holds that Russell was entitled to pretermination notice before his medical leave was terminated, as he had a property interest in the opportunity to apply for disability benefits.
• Dean Tarry Corp. v. Friedlander
  826 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-24 ·cited 8×
  A plaintiff does not possess a cognizable property interest in a site development plan approval when the local zoning ordinance grants the Planning Board broad discretion to disapprove, even if the ordinance is later found invalid.
• Francine Sutton v. Cleveland Bd. of Educ.
  958 F.2d 1339· 6th Cir.· 1992-03-19 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the grievance procedure, even with an intermediate divided board, still constitutes a process leading to final and binding arbitration under Ohio law.
• Fields v. Durham
  909 F.2d 94· 4th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate pre-deprivation process and had sufficient post-deprivation remedies available, thus failing to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Pub. Serv. Co. OF NEW Hampshire v. Town OF W. Newbury
  835 F.2d 380· 1st Cir.· 1987-12-16 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the company failed to demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm or success on the merits, and therefore the denial of a preliminary injunction was not an abuse of discretion.
• Campbell v. Shearer
  732 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff must plead and prove that available state remedies are inadequate or systemically defective to state a claim for constitutional deprivation of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Greene v. Hon. Robert McGUIRE
  683 F.2d 32· 2d Cir.· 1982-06-14 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the police commissioner's denial of reinstatement did not deprive the former officers of property or liberty interests protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, thus no hearing was constitutionally required.
• Marks v. City OF Chesapeake
  883 F.2d 308· 4th Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the City Council's denial of a conditional use permit based on public religious objections, rather than legitimate zoning concerns, was arbitrary and capricious, violating due process.
• Bowles v. Bennett
  629 F.2d 1092· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the denial of the preliminary injunction was proper, the trial court erred in consolidating the preliminary injunction hearing with the trial on the merits without preserving the parties' right to a jury trial on the damages claim.
• Tekkno Labs., Inc. v. Perales
  933 F.2d 1093· 2d Cir.· 1991-05-20 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits seeking to tap the state treasury for past wrongs or due process claims involving property interests, absent a waiver of immunity.
• Alan J. Mishler, M.D. v. Nev. State Bd. OF Med. Exam'rs
  896 F.2d 408· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants did not deprive the plaintiff of any protected interest, and therefore, no due process violation occurred.
• Lillehaug v. City OF Sioux Falls
  788 F.2d 1349· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-18 ·cited 2×
  An appointive officer without a property interest in salary level cannot claim a due process violation when salary is reduced and overpayments recouped, especially when adequate state contract remedies exist.
• Wilkins v. Whitaker
  714 F.2d 4· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-04 ·cited 2×
  A state official's random and unauthorized negligent or intentional act causing loss of property does not violate due process if the state provides a postdeprivation remedy.
• Spradley v. Martin
  897 F. Supp. 560· M.D. Fla.· 1995-08-21 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's due process rights were not violated because adequate post-deprivation remedies existed and the actions were either unauthorized or followed an established procedure that provided sufficient process. Claims for injunctive relief were moot.
• Day v. Hernando Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-10-04
  The court held that the plaintiff did not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment, and even if he did, the state provides adequate remedies for any due process deprivation.
• Ross v. City of Orlando
  141 F. Supp. 2d 1360· M.D. Fla.· 2001-06-04
  The court held that while the city ordinance was not facially vague, its application to the plaintiff's boat on a trailer constituted an erroneous interpretation, not a constitutional violation.
• Schleck v. Ramsey Cnty.
  939 F.2d 638· 8th Cir.· 1991-07-29
  The court held that the defendant is entitled to qualified immunity because the process afforded to the plaintiffs did not violate clearly established due process rights.
• Saverio Senape, M.D. v. Constantino
  936 F.2d 687· 2d Cir.· 1991-06-18
  A physician-provider has no property interest in continued enrollment in New York's Medicaid program due to broad state discretion, and a liberty interest claim requires proof of publication of stigmatizing information, which was not sufficiently alleged.
• Bone v. City OF Lafayette
  919 F.2d 64· 7th Cir.· 1990-11-28
  The court held that the statement that the plaintiff lied was substantially true because a prior state court judgment established that her application for a building permit contained a false certification regarding compliance with local ordinances. Therefore, the defamation claim
• Laidley v. Lantz McCLAIN
  914 F.2d 1386· 10th Cir.· 1990-09-13
  The court held that the notice of appeal was insufficient to confer jurisdiction for most plaintiffs, but a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether one plaintiff was terminated due to political activity, precluding summary judgment for that plaintiff against the