Mathews V. Eldridge Balancing Test

265 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Shango (Cleve Heidelberg v. Jurich
  681 F.2d 1091· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-23 ·cited 131×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by issuing preliminary injunctions based on a mistaken interpretation of state regulations and federal due process law regarding prisoner transfers.
• Haitian Refugee Ctr. v. Smith
  676 F.2d 1023· 5th Cir.· 1982-05-24 ·cited 123×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to hear claims of systemic constitutional violations by the INS, even if some claims might otherwise be reviewable only by courts of appeals, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required in this case.
• Haygood v. Evelle J. Younger
  769 F.2d 1350· 9th Cir.· 1985-08-27 ·cited 101×
  A prisoner's claim for damages due to unlawful detention resulting from established state policy or practice, rather than a random unauthorized act, states a valid § 1983 claim for denial of liberty without due process, subject to qualified immunity defenses.
• United States v. Darby
  744 F.2d 1508· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 96×
  The court affirmed the convictions and sentences, finding no violations of speedy trial rights, abuse of discretion in denying continuances, or denial of a fair trial. It also rejected claims regarding jurisdiction, sentencing, and sufficiency of evidence.
• United States v. The Premises & Real Prop. AT 4492 S. Livonia Rd.
  889 F.2d 1258· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-17 ·cited 92×
  The court held that the initial seizure of the claimant's home without preseizure notice and an opportunity to be heard was improper, but this illegality did not preclude subsequent forfeiture proceedings if untainted evidence was used.
• Stretten v. Wadsworth Veterans Hosp.
  537 F.2d 361· 9th Cir.· 1976-05-18 ·cited 89×
  The court held that a resident physician dismissed for unsatisfactory performance and inability to work with colleagues does not have a liberty interest infringed, and while a property interest exists, due process does not require a full adversary hearing.
• United States v. Brady
  895 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 76×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not violate defendants' Fifth Amendment due process rights, either facially or as applied, by limiting judicial discretion and infringing on the right to individualized sentences.
• Vanelli v. Reynolds Sch. Dist. NO. 7
  667 F.2d 773· 9th Cir.· 1982-01-21 ·cited 73×
  A post-termination hearing can satisfy due process for a property interest if adequate, but a pre-termination hearing is required for a liberty interest when the dismissal is not an emergency. Damages are appropriate for the deprivation of the liberty interest.
• Finberg v. Sullivan
  634 F.2d 50· 3d Cir.· 1980-10-27 ·cited 72×
  The dissenting judge believes the majority erred in interpreting state procedural rules, asserting they provide due process in postjudgment proceedings.
• United States v. Vizcaino
  870 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and its promulgated Guidelines do not unconstitutionally deny due process by restricting judicial discretion or vesting excessive authority in the prosecutorial branch.
• Town Court Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Beal
  586 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the nursing home's due process claim regarding termination of its Medicare provider agreement, even without full exhaustion of administrative remedies, due to the colorable nature of the constitutional claim.
• Clark v. Lou V. Brewer
  776 F.2d 226· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-30 ·cited 55×
  The court held that an inmate's release from close management and settlement of damages did not moot his claim because it was capable of repetition yet evading review, and that state policies created a liberty interest protected by due process.
• McCOLLUM v. Miller
  695 F.2d 1044· 7th Cir.· 1982-12-20 ·cited 53×
  The court held that while Ramirez-Rodriguez may not have received sufficient due process, the feasibility of additional safeguards requires a remand hearing; the other inmates' cases must be remanded to determine if they can proceed as habeas corpus actions.
• United States v. Romano
  825 F.2d 725· 2d Cir.· 1987-08-07 ·cited 52×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying a hearing to contest the pre-sentence report and in imposing the maximum sentence, as the defendant had an opportunity to challenge the information and the sentence was within statutory limits and proportionate to the
• Cloutier v. The Town OF Epping
  714 F.2d 1184· 1st Cir.· 1983-08-05 ·cited 52×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the federal claims, finding that while jurisdiction might not have been entirely lacking, the claims either failed to state a federal question or were barred by immunity, and that summary judgment was appropriate on the merits.
• Stansell v. Revolutionary Armed Forces OF Colombia
  771 F.3d 713· 11th Cir.· 2014-10-16 ·cited 51×
  Victims of a terrorist kidnapping in Colombia obtained a $318 million default judgment against FARC and sought to collect by garnishing and executing assets of third parties alleged to be FARC agencies or instrumentalities under the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (TRIA) § 201. The
• United States v. 141ST St. Corp.
  911 F.2d 870· 2d Cir.· 1990-08-17 ·cited 49×
  The court affirmed the forfeiture of the apartment building, holding that seizure without prior notice was justified by exigent circumstances and that the owner failed to establish the innocent owner defense.
• 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.
• McCRAE v. W.T. Hankins
  720 F.2d 863· 5th Cir.· 1983-12-05 ·cited 49×
  The court held that while prison regulations created a liberty interest in avoiding extended lockdown, the procedures afforded were constitutionally adequate. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the property claim, finding that an intentional deprivation of property is n
• United States Labor Party v. Oremus
  619 F.2d 683· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-24 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim for relief under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause, or Equal Protection Clause, and that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying their post-judgment motion to amend
• Stypmann v. The City & Cnty. OF SAN Francisco
  557 F.2d 1338· 9th Cir.· 1977-07-21 ·cited 48×
  The court held that California Vehicle Code § 22851 and the San Francisco ordinance, which establish a possessory lien for towage and storage fees without adequate prior or post-seizure hearing, violate the Due Process Clause.
• United States v. Thier
  801 F.2d 1463· 5th Cir.· 1986-10-10 ·cited 47×
  The court should require the district court to allow defendants access to funds for defense and living expenses unless the government shows a compelling reason.
• Altman v. Hurst
  734 F.2d 1240· 7th Cir.· 1984-05-18 ·cited 46×
  A public employee's reassignment and denial of overtime or vacation time, absent a showing of constructive discharge or speech on matters of public concern, does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Club Madonna, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach
  924 F.3d 1370· 11th Cir.· 2019-05-24 ·cited 44×
  The Eleventh Circuit held that most of the Club's claims challenging the City's ordinances were ripe for review, but affirmed the dismissal of due process claims for failure to state a claim and affirmed dismissal of a vagueness claim due to lack of standing.
• Easter House v. Felder
  910 F.2d 1387· 7th Cir.· 1990-08-14 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the plaintiff's procedural due process rights were not violated because the state provided adequate post-deprivation remedies for the alleged errors in implementing its civil commitment scheme, and the specific errors were not foreseeable.
• Enis M.I. Pinar v. Dole
  747 F.2d 899· 4th Cir.· 1984-10-22 ·cited 42×
  The court held that federal employees like Pinar, subjected to minor personnel actions, have constitutionally adequate remedies under the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), precluding Bivens claims for damages or injunctive relief in district court.
• Wright v. Califano
  587 F.2d 345· 7th Cir.· 1978-11-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that while SSA delays are undesirable, they do not violate due process or statutory rights to such an extent as to justify the extraordinary remedy of mandatory time limits and interim payments.
• Gray Panthers v. Schweiker
  652 F.2d 146· D.C. Cir.· 1980-10-24 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the Secretary's current notice and 'paper hearing' procedures for Medicare benefit disputes under $100 do not satisfy due process requirements.
• Patterson v. Coughlin
  761 F.2d 886· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a state prisoner alleging a deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate predeprivation procedures, even if a post-deprivation remedy exists, states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Moore v. Warwick Pub. Sch. Dist. NO. 29
  794 F.2d 322· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-13 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the section 504 claim and in sua sponte granting summary judgment on the section 1983 due process claims.
• United States v. Ombey Mobley
  956 F.2d 450· 3d Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that applying guideline § 2K2.1(b)(2) as a strict liability enhancement, in lieu of a criminal charge requiring scienter, violates substantive due process. Additionally, the preponderance of the evidence standard for sentencing factfinding in this context implicate
• DOE v. Gallinot
  657 F.2d 1017· 9th Cir.· 1981-09-10 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act's provisions allowing 14-day involuntary commitment without a mandatory probable cause hearing violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court also affirmed the district court's injunctive relief.
• Saviak v. Gunter
  375 So. 2d 1080· Fla. 1st DCA· 1979-08-28 ·cited 36×
  An insurance agent challenged an emergency suspension of her license by the Department of Insurance, arguing the statute was unconstitutional for failing to provide a pre-suspension adversary hearing with witness testimony and cross-examination rights. The court affirmed the susp
• Gustav E. Beerly v. Dep't OF the Treas.
  768 F.2d 942· 7th Cir.· 1985-07-29 ·cited 35×
  The Comptroller's statutory appraisal of dissenting shareholders' shares, conducted without an oral evidentiary hearing, was constitutionally adequate and judicially reviewable under a deferential standard.
• Sheley v. Dugger
  833 F.2d 1420· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to address the appellant's claims regarding his prolonged confinement in close management, necessitating an evidentiary hearing.
• Mattern v. Mathews
  582 F.2d 248· 3d Cir.· 1978-06-30 ·cited 33×
  The court held that due process requires a pre-recoupment oral hearing for "waiver" cases under section 204(b) of the Social Security Act, but a post-recoupment hearing is sufficient for "reconsideration" cases.
• Detweiler v. Commonwealth OF Va. Dep't OF Rehabilitative Servs.
  705 F.2d 557· 4th Cir.· 1983-04-14 ·cited 32×
  A state employee's property interest in continued employment is protected by the Due Process Clause, and intimidation of witnesses during the grievance process constitutes a denial of due process.
• Winston v. United States Postal Serv.
  585 F.2d 198· 7th Cir.· 1978-09-07 ·cited 32×
  The grievance procedures adopted for non-preference-eligible postal employees under a collective bargaining agreement do not violate the Postal Reorganization Act or the Fifth Amendment's due process clause.
• Bliss O. Bignall, Jr. v. N. Idaho Coll.
  538 F.2d 243· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the college provided inadequate notice of the reasons for non-renewal, the overall process, including a de novo trial, provided substantial due process, and the college's decision was based on valid, non-discriminatory reasons.
• Texaco Inc. v. Pennzoil Co.
  784 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1986-02-20 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction over Texaco's claims regarding the Texas bonding and lien provisions violating due process and equal protection, but lacked jurisdiction over other claims that constituted an impermissible review of the Texas state court jud
• Shawgo v. Spradlin
  701 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were afforded due process through a post-suspension hearing and that their privacy interests were not violated by the disciplinary actions taken by the police department.
• United States v. Prescott
  920 F.2d 139· 2d Cir.· 1990-11-28 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a district court's refusal to depart downwardly from the Sentencing Guidelines is not appealable unless based on a mistaken belief of no discretion, and that the procedures used in determining the base offense level did not violate due process.
• Latrelle Campbell v. Pierce Cnty.
  741 F.2d 1342· 11th Cir.· 1984-09-18 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a post-termination 'name-clearing' hearing, providing notice and an opportunity to refute charges, satisfies due process for a public employee terminated for reputational damage, even without a pre-termination hearing.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  618 F.2d 374· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-06 ·cited 30×
• LEE v. Thornton
  538 F.2d 27· 2d Cir.· 1976-07-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the customs statutes, as applied, violated the Fifth Amendment due process rights of vehicle owners by failing to provide an adequate opportunity to contest the detention of their property.
• United States v. Sunrhodes
  831 F.2d 1537· 10th Cir.· 1987-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the full demands of the Confrontation Clause do not apply to restitution proceedings under the Victim and Witness Protection Act, and that the admission of telephone testimony and the order of restitution to the Indian Health Service were proper.
• 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.
• Premachandra v. Mitts
  727 F.2d 717· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that Dr. Premachandra was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees because prior judicial denials of injunctive relief indicated the VA's actions were not legally required and therefore gratuitous.
• Perri v. Aytch
  724 F.2d 362· 3d Cir.· 1983-12-22 ·cited 26×
  A probationary employee of the judiciary, whose dismissal was based on arrest charges, has a property interest in continued employment during probation and is entitled to a termination hearing. The statute of limitations does not bar her federal claim.
• Marshall J. Orloff, M.D. v. Cleland
  708 F.2d 372· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-25 ·cited 26×
  The court held that material issues of fact remain regarding whether the VA accorded Orloff procedural due process in his termination and salary deductions, requiring reversal of summary judgment.