-
917 F.2d 1216·
9th Cir.·
1990-10-30
·cited 2×
The court held that Washington's procedures for suspending employment disability benefits, which do not include an evidentiary hearing prior to suspension, are constitutionally sufficient under the Due Process Clause.
-
913 F.2d 230·
5th Cir.·
1990-10-02
·cited 2×
The court should reverse the district court's grant of a superintending injunction because the likelihood of the plaintiff encountering the same treatment again is too speculative.
-
882 F.2d 967·
5th Cir.·
1989-09-08
·cited 2×
A medical resident dismissed for academic reasons, who received full salary, is not entitled to the extensive procedural protections afforded to employees terminated from their jobs, and the university provided sufficient process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
784 F.2d 1245·
5th Cir.·
1986-03-14
·cited 2×
The court held that Continental received adequate procedural due process and that the Civil Aeronautics Board's award was supported by substantial evidence and consistent with the Federal Aviation Act and the Fifth Amendment.
-
714 F.2d 512·
5th Cir.·
1983-09-15
·cited 2×
The court held that the plaintiff's claim against the state judges for declaratory and injunctive relief never presented a case or controversy because the underlying dependency proceeding had concluded, rendering the claim moot.
-
694 F.2d 1043·
5th Cir.·
1983-01-06
·cited 2×
The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction, did not err in refusing to abstain or apply res judicata, but did err in granting summary judgment and certifying a class action.
-
635 F.2d 656·
7th Cir.·
1980-12-16
·cited 2×
A prisoner serving a determinate sentence is not entitled to greater due process safeguards than those afforded to a prisoner serving an indeterminate sentence before being deprived of good-time credit.
-
554 F. Supp. 633·
S.D. Fla.·
1982-11-26
·cited 1×
The court held that plaintiffs were entitled to due process, including notice and a hearing, before the USDA could implement emergency interim regulations allowing the importation of Persian limes from Mexico, as their property interests were at stake.
-
M.D. Fla.·
2025-01-22
The court held that the plaintiff plausibly stated claims for substantive and procedural due process violations, and First Amendment retaliation, but dismissed the claim that the trespass policy was void for vagueness.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2025-01-14
The court held that claims for inmate account withdrawals between 2015-2018 are dismissed with prejudice as time-barred, and a claim for a 2024 withdrawal fails to state a procedural due process violation and is dismissed without prejudice.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2023-12-28
The Court held that an emergency ex parte Protection from Abuse Order (PFA) requiring a defendant to temporarily surrender firearms does not violate the Second Amendment or Due Process rights. The Court found that individuals subject to domestic violence orders fall into a presum
-
M.D. Fla.·
2022-04-01
The court held that a federal habeas petitioner challenging unaffordable bail must demonstrate the trial court's ruling was not rationally related to a legitimate government interest, and that the state court complied with procedural due process by considering less restrictive al
-
M.D. Fla.·
2021-10-14
The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim for deprivation of property without due process, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
-
S.D. Fla.·
2021-03-02
The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiff's allegations, if true, stated plausible claims for unlawful seizure and other violations of constitutional rights.
-
Del. Super. Ct.·
2013-11-19
The Delaware Department of Transportation (DelDOT) was granted summary judgment, and its motion to dismiss was granted. The court found that DelDOT was protected by sovereign immunity, as there was no waiver by the General Assembly or procurement of insurance. The court also dete
-
999 F.2d 647·
2d Cir.·
1993-07-23
The court held that while the plaintiff's due process rights were violated by extending his sentence without a final revocation hearing, the defendant parole officers were entitled to qualified immunity because the specific constitutional right was not clearly established at the
-
996 F.2d 180·
7th Cir.·
1993-06-14
The court held that the district court erred in finding Illinois's license revocation scheme unconstitutional on due process grounds and that the preliminary injunction was improperly granted.
-
988 F.2d 1469·
6th Cir.·
1993-03-12
The court's majority opinion, which this concurrence agrees with regarding the judgment, applied a rational basis test to a governmental scheme, finding it permissible. The concurring judge believes a reasonableness test is more appropriate for substantive due process claims.
-
982 F.2d 594·
D.C. Cir.·
1993-01-22
The court held that Reeve Aleutian Airways received constitutionally adequate notice and a meaningful hearing before suspension, satisfying due process requirements.
-
972 F.2d 851·
7th Cir.·
1992-08-18
The court held that a one-year delay in a post-termination hearing, while without pay, did not violate due process rights when a pre-termination hearing was provided and the delay was attributed to an administrative bottleneck.
-
951 F.2d 638·
5th Cir.·
1992-01-28
A state actor is not liable under § 1983 for a deprivation of property without due process if the deprivation was random and unauthorized, and an adequate post-deprivation remedy is available under state law.
-
924 F.2d 56·
4th Cir.·
1991-01-22
The court held that Virginia's procedures for suspending a driver's license based on a medical director's report of drug addiction, followed by prompt reinstatement procedures, satisfy the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-
922 F.2d 1152·
4th Cir.·
1991-01-14
The court held that the town's refusal to renew the nightclub license did not violate due process because the owner received adequate notice and opportunity to be heard, and the property interest was minimal.
-
916 F.2d 1032·
5th Cir.·
1990-11-08
The court held that the district court erred by declaring the plaintiff incompetent and appointing a guardian ad litem without affording him a due process hearing. The law of the litigant's domicile determines competence to sue, but federal procedures can be used for the determin
-
868 F.2d 90·
3d Cir.·
1989-02-17
The court held that a student's participation in extracurricular activities, under New Jersey law, constitutes a protected property interest, and arbitrary deprivation without due process violates constitutional safeguards.
-
864 F.2d 426·
6th Cir.·
1988-12-29
A student suspended for ten days for possession of a drug look-alike substance is not denied procedural due process by not being allowed to cross-examine an anonymous student informant or by not being given the informant's written statement, as long as the student receives notice
-
857 F.2d 1095·
6th Cir.·
1988-09-23
The court held that the plaintiff's three-day suspension and reprimands did not violate his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or the right to petition the government.
-
825 F.2d 930·
5th Cir.·
1987-08-31
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff may have alleged sufficient facts to ground a constitutional claim for deprivation of due process.
-
784 F.2d 1322·
5th Cir.·
1986-03-24
The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the suit for lack of jurisdiction and failure to join an indispensable party, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with his constitutional challenge.
-
752 F.2d 196·
6th Cir.·
1985-01-09
A customer has a property interest in receiving electricity, protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, which requires notice and a pre-termination hearing even when the utility alleges theft, unless the customer disputes culpability.
-
718 F.2d 348·
10th Cir.·
1983-09-28
Denying a student facing expulsion the right to be represented by counsel violates minimum due process standards.
-
706 F.2d 796·
7th Cir.·
1983-05-16
The court held that due process does not require the Appeals Committee to provide a statement of reasons for denying residency reclassification for tuition purposes, as the administrative burden outweighs the slight private interest and the risk of error is minimal.