Mathews V. Eldridge Balancing Test

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

• Goichman v. Rheuban Motors, Inc.
  682 F.2d 1320· 9th Cir.· 1982-07-02 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a post-storage hearing within forty-eight hours satisfies due process requirements for vehicle impoundment and that a private towing company acting at the direction of law enforcement is considered to be acting under color of state law for § 1983 claims.
• M.M. Cassim, M.D. v. Bowen
  824 F.2d 791· 9th Cir.· 1987-08-12 ·cited 25×
  A physician is not entitled to a full evidentiary hearing before suspension from Medicare, as the existing pre-deprivation notice and opportunity to respond, coupled with a right to a prompt post-deprivation hearing, satisfy due process.
• Mercer v. Mitchell
  908 F.2d 763· 11th Cir.· 1990-08-08 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by imposing fines for civil contempt without providing the County with adequate due process, specifically a show-cause order and a hearing.
• 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.
• Joseph Darlak, M.D. v. Bobear
  814 F.2d 1055· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred suits against state entities DHHR and Charity, and that Dr. Darlak received sufficient due process regarding his suspension from hospital privileges.
• In re the Application of Michael J. Kingsley for the Return of Seized Prop.
  802 F.2d 571· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the government's seizure of the appellant's home and its contents was unlawful due to constitutional violations, and the district court improperly avoided ruling on these issues.
• United States v. Monsanto
  924 F.2d 1186· 2d Cir.· 1991-04-04 ·cited 22×
  The statute as written is constitutional and does not require a pretrial adversarial hearing to determine probable cause for restraining forfeitable assets.
• Draper v. Davis S. Coombs
  792 F.2d 915· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-24 ·cited 22×
  The court held that plaintiff properly pleaded § 1983 claims for extradition violations and towing under an unconstitutional ordinance, and that nominal damages are available even without actual harm. Claims against the State of Washington were affirmed due to Eleventh Amendment
• Razatos v. The Colo. Supreme Court
  746 F.2d 1429· 10th Cir.· 1984-10-29 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over the due process claim and that the Colorado attorney disciplinary scheme does not violate due process, even when credibility is at issue, because the Supreme Court retains ultimate review power and discre
• Ramirez-Osorio v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  745 F.2d 937· 5th Cir.· 1984-10-23 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the dissent's arguments regarding prior injunctions and due process were not properly before the court on appeal.
• Hickey v. Morris
  722 F.2d 543· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-23 ·cited 22×
  Washington's procedures for the commitment and release of insanity acquittees do not violate equal protection or due process rights, as the differences are substantially related to important governmental objectives and justifiable distinctions between the classes.
• 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.
• Ciechon v. City OF Chicago
  634 F.2d 1055· 7th Cir.· 1980-11-20 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Due Process Clause does not require a full hearing prior to the suspension of public employees for violation of a residency ordinance, as long as a prompt post-suspension hearing is assured.
• Emilien Levesque v. State OF Me.
  587 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1978-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The denial of a temporary restraining order is appealable when it effectively denies a preliminary injunction and forecloses further interlocutory relief.
• Williams v. Wallis
  734 F.2d 1434· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-22 ·cited 21×
  Alabama's procedures for releasing insanity acquittees do not violate equal protection or due process, and class certification was properly denied.
• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. U.J. Hofer
  5 So. 3d 766· Fla. 2d DCA· 2009-03-18 ·cited 20×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District, granted the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles' petition for certiorari to review a circuit court's decision that quashed an administrative suspension of Hofer's driver's license. The appellate court held that th
• Easter House v. Felder
  879 F.2d 1458· 7th Cir.· 1989-07-11 ·cited 20×
  The Constitution does not require a hearing before the state may suspend a license if the state provides adequate post-deprivation remedies.
• Dionne v. Bouley
  757 F.2d 1344· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that Rhode Island's post-judgment garnishment procedures are constitutionally insufficient because they fail to provide adequate notice of exemption rights and a prompt opportunity for a hearing.
• Foggs v. Block
  722 F.2d 933· 1st Cir.· 1983-12-07 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the notice provided to food stamp recipients was constitutionally inadequate, the district court exceeded its authority in ordering broad prospective relief and benefit restoration.
• Coppenbarger v. Fed. Aviation Admin.
  558 F.2d 836· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-27 ·cited 20×
  The Due Process Clause does not require the FAA to hold an evidentiary hearing before denying an exemption from airman medical certificate regulations when the applicant concedes they do not meet the substantive requirements.
• United States v. ONE 1971 BMW 4-Door Sedan
  652 F.2d 817· 9th Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 19×
  The court held that the appellant was not denied due process by the delay in forfeiture proceedings or the notice provided, and that probable cause existed for the seizure.
• Inmates OF the Nebraska Penal AND Correctional Complex v. Greenholtz
  576 F.2d 1274· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-18 ·cited 19×
  The Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to parole release determinations, requiring certain procedural safeguards. However, the full panoply of rights afforded in criminal prosecutions is not required.
• Brennan v. Cunningham
  813 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1987-03-03 ·cited 18×
  A prisoner's revocation from a work release program, which is closely tied to parole and offers a measure of liberty beyond incarceration, implicates a liberty interest protected by due process. The revocation must be based on specific grounds outlined in state regulations and su
• United States v. Baker
  807 F.2d 1315· 6th Cir.· 1986-12-29 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the initial commitment under § 4241(d) was valid for only four months, and the subsequent indefinite commitment under § 4246 was invalid due to procedural and due process violations.
• Frier v. City OF Vandalia
  770 F.2d 699· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-23 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff's federal due process claim was barred by claim preclusion due to a prior state court replevin judgment.
• Buttrey v. United States
  690 F.2d 1170· 5th Cir.· 1982-11-08 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Clean Water Act's requirement for "public hearings" does not mandate trial-type adjudicatory hearings, and that the applicant received sufficient procedural due process through the Corps' informal "paper hearing" process.
• Giacone v. Schweiker
  656 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-10 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a claimant's due process rights may be violated if the ALJ fails to inform them about the 'good cause' requirement for filing a late request for reconsideration, potentially waiving the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement for judicial review.
• Yaretsky v. Blum
  629 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1980-08-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that due process requires procedural safeguards for nursing home patients facing transfer to a different level of care, but administrative decision-makers are not required to read verbatim transcripts of hearings before reversing a hearing officer's decision.
• Dumschat v. Bd. OF Pardons
  618 F.2d 216· 2d Cir.· 1980-03-20 ·cited 18×
  Inmates serving life sentences in Connecticut have a protected liberty interest in the pardons process due to the consistent practice of granting pardons, entitling them to written explanations for adverse decisions once that interest vests.
• Needleman v. Bohlen
  602 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-25 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the teacher's position as coordinator did not confer statutory tenure, and the procedures afforded for denying her salary increment were constitutionally adequate.
• Lerma v. Estelle
  585 F.2d 1297· 5th Cir.· 1978-12-11 ·cited 18×
  A federal court should not grant habeas corpus relief if the petitioner has not exhausted available administrative remedies within the state prison system.
• Breath v. Alwynn J. Cronvich
  729 F.2d 1006· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-16 ·cited 17×
  The dissenting judge believes the appearance bond procedure is unconstitutional in this case because the owner was not informed of the alternative and the procedure was not practically available.
• Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. NEW England Teamsters & Trucking Indus. Pension Fund, Inc.
  762 F.2d 1137· 1st Cir.· 1985-05-23 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act (MPPAA) did not violate due process by requiring employers to make withdrawal liability payments, even if withdrawal was involuntary.
• Christopher v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole
  589 F.2d 924· 7th Cir.· 1978-12-29 ·cited 16×
  The court should have remanded for a determination of whether the Board's denial of confrontation and cross-examination was a proper exercise of discretion.
• Kennedy v. Harold T. Robb, M.D.
  547 F.2d 408· 8th Cir.· 1976-12-30 ·cited 16×
  Procedural due process requires that a state employee with a property interest in employment must be given an opportunity to rebut charges against them before suspension and discharge.
• A.M. v. Dep't OF Child. & Families
  223 So. 3d 312· Fla. 4th DCA· 2017-07-19 ·cited 15×
  A mother challenges the termination of her parental rights on grounds that her procedural due process rights were violated by holding the termination trial while she was incompetent. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the termination, holding that due process does not r
• Alain Scofield v. City OF Hillsborough
  862 F.2d 759· 9th Cir.· 1988-12-07 ·cited 15×
  Due process does not require pre-towing notice for vehicles unregistered for over a year, but a post-towing hearing may be constitutionally required if timely requested and denied.
• Arnold Ritter, D.O. v. Cohen
  797 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that even if a medical provider had a property interest in participating in the state Medicaid program, the pre-termination notice and opportunity to respond, coupled with a post-termination hearing, satisfied due process requirements.
• Preach Fleming v. United States Dep't OF Agric.
  713 F.2d 179· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-13 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the Horse Protection Act's standards are not unconstitutionally vague and that the post-show examination evidence was sufficiently reliable and supported by substantial evidence.
• Miller v. Williams
  590 F.2d 317· 9th Cir.· 1979-01-29 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the employee's claims of retaliation under Title VII and due process violations were without merit, affirming the summary judgment granted to the employer.
• Castaneda v. Henman
  914 F.2d 981· 7th Cir.· 1990-10-01 ·cited 14×
  A prisoner transferred for security reasons, rather than disciplinary reasons, is not entitled to a hearing.
• Somerset House, Inc. v. Turnock
  900 F.2d 1012· 7th Cir.· 1990-04-16 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the pre-deprivation procedures provided by the Nursing Home Care Reform Act, including notice and an opportunity to respond, were sufficient to satisfy due process requirements for issuing a conditional license and placing a facility on a list of violators. Te
• Deba Edelman v. W. Airlines, Inc.
  892 F.2d 839· 9th Cir.· 1989-12-27 ·cited 14×
  State law claims are preempted by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) if they are "inextricably intertwined" with the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement, and a due process challenge can serve as an independent basis for federal court jurisdiction over Adjustment Board de
• United States v. Unit NO. 7 & Unit NO. 8 OF Shop IN THE Grove Condo.
  853 F.2d 1445· 8th Cir.· 1988-08-05 ·cited 14×
  The government violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments by refusing to return a criminal defendant's allegedly forfeitable property when it was established as his only source of funds to pay his defense lawyer.
• Price v. City OF Junction
  711 F.2d 582· 5th Cir.· 1983-06-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the city's "junk car" ordinance is a constitutional exercise of police power and does not violate due process, equal protection, or the takings clause.
• Ressler v. Pierce
  692 F.2d 1212· 9th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 14×
  Applicants for Section 8 housing benefits have a constitutionally protected property interest entitling them to due process protections in the application and selection process. However, the specific procedures ordered by the district court require modification.
• Drayton v. McCALL
  584 F.2d 1208· 2d Cir.· 1978-10-02 ·cited 14×
  A federal prisoner granted parole but not yet released is entitled to due process procedural safeguards in a parole rescission hearing, though not necessarily all those required for parole revocation.
• Gabrilowitz v. Newman
  582 F.2d 100· 1st Cir.· 1978-06-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that denying a student the right to consult with and be advised by counsel during a disciplinary hearing, when a related criminal case is pending, deprives the student of due process.
• Isaacs v. Bowen
  865 F.2d 468· 2d Cir.· 1989-01-04 ·cited 13×
  The court held that Congress, by amending the Medicare Act and authorizing a study of the fair hearing process, ratified the Secretary's interpretation requiring a fair hearing for Part B claims regardless of the amount in controversy.
• Daniels v. Woodbury Cnty.
  742 F.2d 1128· 8th Cir.· 1984-09-10 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court correctly found due process violations in the administration of the general relief program and affirmed the award of damages, but remanded for a more specific injunction and further findings on eligibility standards.