Mathews V. Eldridge Balancing Test

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

• LeBEAU v. Spirito
  703 F.2d 639· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the adequacy of AFDC benefit reduction notices.
• Thomason v. Schweiker
  692 F.2d 333· 4th Cir.· 1982-11-02 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the ALJ's attorney fee award and that the attorney was not denied due process by the lack of an evidentiary hearing.
• Phillips v. Pa. Higher Educ. Assistance Agency
  657 F.2d 554· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-27 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process rights were not violated by PHEAA suing them in Dauphin County, as adequate state procedures existed for them to challenge venue or seek relief.
• United States v. Twelve Thousand
  956 F.2d 801· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-10 ·cited 12×
  The court held that it retained jurisdiction to hear the appeal despite the government's distribution of the seized currency, and that the district court did not err in ordering forfeiture.
• Oviatt v. Pearce
  954 F.2d 1470· 9th Cir.· 1992-01-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a jury could reasonably find Multnomah County liable under § 1983 for deliberate indifference to an inmate's liberty interest, and that the county was not immune from liability for false imprisonment under the Oregon Tort Claims Act.
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. M.D. Hardy, M.D.
  943 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in dismissing his suit under Rule 12(b)(6) without accepting his allegations of bias as true.
• Saboet Elmazi Azizi and Feim Azizi v. Thornburgh
  908 F.2d 1130· 2d Cir.· 1990-07-05 ·cited 12×
  Section 5 of the Immigration Marriage Fraud Amendments of 1986 contravenes the due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment because it is a procedural provision that fails to provide adequate procedural safeguards.
• Stone v. R.G. Godbehere
  894 F.2d 1131· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-01 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Arizona statute and injunction were not unconstitutionally vague and did not violate due process, but that the amended sentencing order violated double jeopardy principles under Arizona law.
• Mujahid Farid v. Smith
  850 F.2d 917· 2d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 12×
  A prior state court judgment precludes claims for declaratory or equitable relief and relitigation of policy constitutionality, but not claims for damages where the state court lacked jurisdiction to award them.
• Cnty. Line Joint Venture v. The City OF Grand Prairie
  839 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the City's enactment of a zoning ordinance terminating specific use permits upon six months of non-use was a legislative act, and thus did not violate procedural due process rights. However, other federal and state claims were not addressed by the lower court
• Nilsa Ortiz v. Eichler
  794 F.2d 889· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Delaware's pre-hearing notice requirements for welfare benefits must be detailed, including calculations and reasons, and that claimants have a right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses under federal regulations.
• McCAHEY v. L.P. Invs.
  774 F.2d 543· 2d Cir.· 1985-09-30 ·cited 12×
  The dissenting judge held that the statutorily required "Notice to Judgment Debtor" in New York does not satisfy due process because it fails to adequately inform judgment debtors of their rights and the procedures for asserting them.
• Smith v. Sorensen
  748 F.2d 427· 8th Cir.· 1984-11-05 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Merit System rules did not grant employees a property interest in retention points calculated on total departmental service, and that the administrative process did not violate due process or impermissibly impair contracts.
• United States v. Lowery
  733 F.2d 441· 7th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 12×
  Lawyers' conduct in deliberately exceeding cross-examination bounds after repeated warnings constituted criminal contempt under 18 U.S.C. § 401, and summary contempt procedure was appropriate due to the need for immediate remedy to prevent trial disruption.
• Charles W. Keney, M.D. v. R.C. Derbyshire, M.D.
  718 F.2d 352· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the procedures afforded under the Uniform Licensing Act, including notice and a hearing, were sufficient to satisfy due process, and a separate probable cause hearing was not constitutionally required in this license revocation context.
• Anibal Soberal-Perez v. Heckler
  717 F.2d 36· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Secretary's failure to provide notices and services in Spanish does not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.
• 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.
• Anthony v. Wilkinson
  637 F.2d 1130· 7th Cir.· 1980-12-23 ·cited 12×
• Louise B. v. Aldo Coluatti
  606 F.2d 392· 3d Cir.· 1979-09-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the confidentiality and procedural due process claims, finding jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and pendent jurisdiction, and that the procedural due process claim was not foreclosed by Arnett v. Kennedy.
• Woodard v. Wainwright
  556 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-29 ·cited 12×
  Florida Statute Section 39.02(5)(c), which automatically divests juvenile courts of jurisdiction upon a grand jury indictment for offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment, is constitutional and does not violate due process by failing to require a hearing.
• Benham v. Ledbetter
  785 F.2d 1480· 11th Cir.· 1986-03-21 ·cited 11×
  The court held that Georgia's statutory scheme for releasing persons committed after acquittal by reason of insanity is constitutional, as it satisfies due process requirements.
• United States v. Certain Real Est. Prop. Located at 4880 S.E. Dixie Hwy.
  612 F. Supp. 1492· S.D. Fla.· 1985-07-03 ·cited 11×
  The Constitution forbids the Attorney General from seizing real property under 21 U.S.C. § 881(b) without prior judicial review, absent exigent circumstances.
• Pollgreen v. Morris
  496 F. Supp. 1042· S.D. Fla.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 11×
  The court held that due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing for vessels seized under immigration laws, and that the administrative procedures offered were inadequate or unavailable.
• Schiavo Ex Rel. Schindler v. Schiavo
  357 F. Supp. 2d 1378· M.D. Fla.· 2005-03-22 ·cited 10×
  The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order because the plaintiffs failed to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
• Flores v. Meese
  942 F.2d 1352· 9th Cir.· 1991-08-09 ·cited 10×
  The INS policy of incarcerating children pending deportation hearings, rather than releasing them to responsible non-relative adults, flagrantly violates due process.
• DOE v. Hennepin Cnty.
  858 F.2d 1325· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-06 ·cited 10×
  The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the appellees are protected by qualified immunity despite potential due process concerns.
• Dickson v. Off. of Pers. Mgmt.
  828 F.2d 32· D.C. Cir.· 1987-09-04 ·cited 10×
  The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is subject to a damage action under the Privacy Act when it maintains a record violating the mandated standard of fairness, even if another agency makes the adverse determination based on that record. Appellant failed to exhaust administra
• Coughlin v. Westinghouse Broad. & Cable Inc.
  780 F.2d 340· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-30 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a public official, failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding actual malice, and the Pennsylvania Shield Law is constitutional as applied to public official libel actions.
• Bohn v. Cnty. OF Dakota: Shirley L. Utzinger
  772 F.2d 1433· 8th Cir.· 1985-09-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the available administrative review procedures, including those under the Minnesota Administrative Procedure Act and Data Practices Act, provided adequate due process, and that alleged misrepresentations by state officials did not rise to the level of a consti
• Copaken v. Secretary of Health
  590 F.2d 729· 8th Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to review the Secretary's attorney fee determination for an abuse of discretion, and that the attorneys' constitutional claims were not colorable.
• Baden v. Koch
  799 F.2d 825· 2d Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff's property interest claim was barred by the law of the case doctrine and that he did not possess a liberty interest sufficient to warrant a formal name-clearing hearing, as he had already received adequate process. The judgment awarding damages f
• Vukadinovich v. Bd. OF Sch. Trs. OF the Mich. City Area Schs.
  978 F.2d 403· 7th Cir.· 1992-10-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's termination and subsequent treatment did not violate his constitutional rights to free speech or due process.
• Matthias v. Bingley
  906 F.2d 1047· 5th Cir.· 1990-07-26 ·cited 8×
  The City's ordinance and established police practices violated the Due Process Clause by failing to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before disposing of seized property.
• Chalkboard, Inc. v. Brandt
  879 F.2d 668· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that state officials were not entitled to absolute immunity for summarily suspending a day care license because their actions did not align with statutorily defined judicial or prosecutorial functions, and qualified immunity was not warranted on the undisputed fact
• Sheley v. Dugger
  824 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate's claims of procedural due process, Eighth Amendment, substantive due process, and equal protection violations were without merit, emphasizing deference to prison administrators' decisions.
• Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler
  811 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 8×
• Grantham v. Gunter
  498 So. 2d 1328· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-12-10 ·cited 8×
  A bail bondsman challenged the constitutionality of a Florida statute that mandates immediate temporary suspension of a bail bonds license when the licensee is charged with a felony or crime of moral turpitude. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upheld the statute, holding that
• McClelland v. Massinga
  786 F.2d 1205· 4th Cir.· 1986-03-18 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Maryland's Tax Refund Interception Program (TRIP) does not violate due process by failing to provide a pre-intercept hearing for obligated parents or notice to non-obligated spouses who did not contribute to the tax payments.
• Int'l Union v. Keystone Consol. Indus., Inc.
  782 F.2d 1400· 7th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The majority holds that Keystone did not waive its right to an IRS waiver of ERISA's minimum funding requirement, and the arbitrator's refusal to honor the IRS waiver violates public policy.
• Rodgers v. Norfolk Sch. Bd.
  755 F.2d 59· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the procedures afforded to the employee, including notice, opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful review, satisfied due process requirements, even without direct confrontation of child accusers or advance notice of the right to counsel.
• Kraemer v. Heckler
  737 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 8×
  A Utilization Review Committee's determination of medical necessity for Medicare benefits is not 'state action' because it is based on private professional medical judgment, not government dictate.
• Jordan v. The City OF Lake Oswego
  734 F.2d 1374· 9th Cir.· 1984-06-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process before termination, balancing his property interest against the city's need for efficient resolution of conflicts.
• Lucero v. Ogden
  718 F.2d 355· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 217, which precludes review of bar examination results but allows unlimited retakes, satisfies the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Scherer v. Davis
  543 F. Supp. 4· N.D. Fla.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for unrecovered wages and injunctive relief related to his initial termination were waived by his settlement, but claims for additional damages and declaratory relief were not waived. The court also found that the procedures afforded to
• United States Postal Serv. v. Athena Prods., Ltd.
  654 F.2d 362· 5th Cir.· 1981-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The statutory scheme authorizing the Postal Service to detain mail based on probable cause of false representations in commercial advertising does not violate the First Amendment or due process, provided injunctions are limited to the duration necessary for prompt administrative
• Hosp. SAN Jorge, Inc. v. United States Secretary OF Health
  598 F.2d 684· 1st Cir.· 1979-05-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that federal question jurisdiction was barred by 42 U.S.C. § 405(h) and that the hospital's constitutional claims lacked merit or were procedurally barred.
• Cruz v. Ward
  558 F.2d 658· 2d Cir.· 1977-06-23 ·cited 8×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion failed to recognize the record's evidence of punitive transfers of mentally ill patients, violating their constitutional rights.
• McGRATH v. Caspar W. Weinberger
  541 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1976-09-03 ·cited 8×
  The Due Process Clause does not require prior notice and an opportunity for a hearing before appointing a representative payee for Social Security beneficiaries deemed incapable of managing their own benefits.
• United States v. ALL Assets OF Statewide Auto Parts, Inc.
  971 F.2d 896· 2d Cir.· 1992-08-03 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the seizure warrant was validly issued ex parte, and the seizure did not violate defendants' due process rights, as extraordinary circumstances justified the pre-hearing seizure.
• Jackson Court Condos., Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  874 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Summary judgment was inappropriate on Jackson Court's equal protection claim because factual findings were needed to determine if it was similarly situated to other exempted time-shares.