Hudson V. Palmer Doctrine

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

• Wright v. Lanson Newsome
  795 F.2d 964· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-06 ·cited 113×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion in denying the inmate's motion to amend his complaint and erred in dismissing his claims for procedural due process, access to the courts, and pendent state law claims.
• Depew v. City OF ST. Marys
  787 F.2d 1496· 11th Cir.· 1986-04-28 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict finding the city liable under section 1983 for a custom or policy of police misconduct, and that the existence of adequate state remedies does not bar such a claim when constitutional rights are violate
• Gumz v. Morrissette
  772 F.2d 1395· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-05 ·cited 66×
  Excessive force claims during an arrest should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment's objective reasonableness standard, not the Fourteenth Amendment's substantive due process, which lacks textual support and relies on subjective judicial feelings.
• Thibodeaux v. Bordelon
  740 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 57×
  A pretrial detainee's claim of injury due to negligent supervision by jail officials does not state a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if adequate post-deprivation state tort remedies are available.
• Schaper v. City OF Huntsville
  813 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that allegations of bias and conspiracy in pre-termination hearings, even if true, do not state a procedural or substantive due process claim when a post-termination administrative remedy is available.
• Gillihan v. Shillinger
  872 F.2d 935· 10th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 24×
  The court held that a prisoner stated a claim for deprivation of property without due process when funds were taken from his account pursuant to established policy, and that the district court erred in denying his motion to supplement his complaint.
• Rawleigh C. Wilson v. The Civil Town OF Clayton
  839 F.2d 375· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Parratt doctrine, which allows dismissal of procedural due process claims when an adequate post-deprivation state remedy exists for random and unauthorized acts, does not apply to claims against municipalities acting under official policy or to claims wher
• Ramsey v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Whitley Cnty.
  844 F.2d 1268· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-25 ·cited 20×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in remanding the case to state court, arguing a cause of action for discriminatory conduct was stated.
• Freeman v. Blair
  793 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the officials were not entitled to absolute immunity for decisions to inspect without a warrant or for license suspensions, and that the law regarding warrantless administrative searches and due process for license suspensions was clearly established, thus den
• Weimer v. Amen
  870 F.2d 1400· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of procedural and substantive due process violations failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the alleged fraudulent actions by state officials were random and unauthorized, and thus the state's post-deprivation
• Collins v. King
  743 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 12×
  A prisoner's claim of a biased tribunal in a disciplinary hearing, absent allegations of constitutionally inadequate state post-deprivation remedies, does not state a procedural due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Burch v. Apalachee Cmty. Mental Health Servs., Inc.
  804 F.2d 1549· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-03 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Florida's post-deprivation remedies were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements for alleged deprivations of liberty, precluding a Section 1983 action.
• Fields v. Durham
  856 F.2d 655· 4th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging a random and unauthorized failure of state officials to follow established procedures in terminating employment is not denied due process if meaningful post-deprivation remedies are available under state law.
• Yates v. Jamison
  782 F.2d 1182· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process claim must be dismissed because they have an adequate postdeprivation remedy under state law, specifically an action for inverse condemnation.
• Huron Valley Hosp., Inc. v. City OF Pontiac
  887 F.2d 710· 6th Cir.· 1989-10-13 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' § 1983 claims were properly dismissed because adequate state remedies existed to address the alleged due process violations, even if those remedies provided less relief than § 1983.
• Fonzie O. Martin v. Dallas Cnty.
  822 F.2d 553· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 5×
  The court held that a claim for deprivation of substantive due process is not barred by the Parratt/Hudson doctrine, but claims for procedural due process violations are barred if the state provides adequate post-deprivation remedies. Summary judgment for the district clerk was a
• Allen v. City OF Kinloch
  763 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state tort remedy, such as replevin, satisfies due process requirements for a random and unauthorized deprivation of property, even if the deprivation was tortious.
• Preston v. Smith
  750 F.2d 530· 6th Cir.· 1984-12-19 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a state prisoner's claim for deprivation of property is barred if the state provides an adequate post-deprivation remedy, and that claims for unconstitutional segregation require further consideration in light of recent Supreme Court decisions.
• 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.