Mathews V. Eldridge Factors

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

• United States v. Kerri L. Kaley
  579 F.3d 1246· 11th Cir.· 2009-08-18 ·cited 124×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court's denial of a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the legality of asset restraints imposed pursuant to a criminal forfeiture indictment. The Kaleys, charged with conspiracy to transport stolen medical devices, money laundering, and obstr
• Keys Citizens for Responsible Gov't, Inc. v. Fla. Keys Aqueduct Auth.
  795 So. 2d 940· Fla.· 2001-07-12 ·cited 121×
  Keys Citizens for Responsible Government challenged a circuit court's validation of sewer revenue bonds issued by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, arguing that the court improperly validated a mandatory sewer connection ordinance as part of the bond validation proceeding. The
• Mazaleski v. Treusdell
  562 F.2d 701· D.C. Cir.· 1977-04-26 ·cited 106×
  The Public Health Service (PHS) failed to follow its own regulations in dismissing appellant, requiring reversal. Furthermore, appellant possessed a protected property interest in his continued employment because PHS regulations stipulated termination only for cause. Consequently
• Toussaint v. McCARTHY
  801 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-30 ·cited 105×
  The court held that the district court assumed too much control over prison affairs, requiring modification of the permanent injunction to ensure it is no broader than necessary to remedy constitutional violations.
• Josephina Duchesne as Administratrix of the Estate of Pauline Perez v. Jule M. Sugarman
  566 F.2d 817· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-28 ·cited 94×
  The court held that the prolonged retention of children without parental consent or prompt judicial ratification, despite repeated requests for their return, violated the mother's and children's due process rights.
• Brown v. Brienen
  722 F.2d 360· 7th Cir.· 1983-12-08 ·cited 84×
  The due process clause does not require more than a post-deprivation state lawsuit for breach of contract involving a denial of accrued compensatory time off.
• United States v. Jessup
  757 F.2d 378· 1st Cir.· 1985-02-25 ·cited 72×
  The court held that the Bail Reform Act's rebuttable presumption for serious drug offenses does not violate due process and that Congress acted within its constitutional limits in creating it.
• Bettie Jo Cherry v. Heckler
  760 F.2d 1186· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision not to reopen the prior application was not a due process violation, but that the case should be remanded for consideration of new psychological evidence.
• United States v. Wise
  976 F.2d 393· 8th Cir.· 1992-09-17 ·cited 62×
  The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's sentencing decision, finding that the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation did not apply to sentencing proceedings and that the district court's reliance on hearsay evidence was permissible. The majority concluded t
• Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  710 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the attorneys received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements for the imposition of fines for violating local rules.
• 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.
• Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard DYE & Finishing Co., Inc.
  725 F.2d 843· 2d Cir.· 1984-01-09 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the retroactive application of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) withdrawal liability provisions is constitutional and does not violate employers' due process rights.
• Johnson v. Brelje
  701 F.2d 1201· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-18 ·cited 53×
  The dissenting judge believes the Illinois Criminal Code and Mental Health Code provide sufficient due process for individuals found unfit to stand trial, making additional federal due process requirements unnecessary.
• Larry v. Lawler
  605 F.2d 954· 7th Cir.· 1978-08-18 ·cited 48×
  The court held that the applicant was afforded due process and the Commission's findings were justified.
• Louis v. Blackburn
  630 F.2d 1105· 5th Cir.· 1980-11-19 ·cited 47×
  Due process requires a district judge to personally hear the testimony of witnesses when making an independent credibility determination that is inconsistent with the magistrate's findings.
• Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. OF Arlington Heights
  616 F.2d 1006· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the intervenors' federal constitutional right to procedural due process was violated by the failure to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing regarding the annexation and rezoning of a tract of land.
• Klein v. Califano
  586 F.2d 250· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 41×
  The court held that the appeal was moot regarding the prospective application of the district court's injunction, as the nursing home had been recertified as a qualified Medicaid provider. However, the appeal was not moot concerning the government's intention to seek recoupment o
• Massey v. Charlotte Cnty.
  842 So. 2d 142· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-02-07 ·cited 36×
  The Florida District Court of Appeal granted a petition for writ of certiorari to quash a circuit court order that had affirmed a code enforcement board's imposition of a lien on the Masseys' property for building code violations. The court held that the board violated procedural
• Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  844 F.2d 304· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-06 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the Board of Education could assert its pretermination defense for the first time on remand, and that the pretermination procedures provided to Loudermill satisfied due process requirements. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to Loudermill as
• United States v. Schell
  692 F.2d 672· 10th Cir.· 1982-10-13 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the trial court's findings and sentencing under the dangerous special offender statute did not violate the defendant's constitutional rights, including due process and the Eighth Amendment.
• United States v. Giuseppe Pugliese and Pietro Pugliese
  805 F.2d 1117· 2d Cir.· 1986-11-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that a sentencing judge's reliance on a transcript from another judge's ongoing hearing, without ensuring the reliability and accuracy of the information, particularly regarding allegations of witness intimidation, constitutes plain error and abuse of discretion, m
• Bella Oberlander and Sandor Oberlander v. Perales
  740 F.2d 116· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-29 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a state Medicaid provider's claim that state officials violated federal law by failing to comply with state regulations is not actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and that available state procedures provided sufficient due process for recoupment of overpayments
• Shrader v. Harris
  631 F.2d 297· 4th Cir.· 1980-09-26 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a claimant's mental illness, which prevented understanding of administrative procedures for appeal, can prevent the application of res judicata to bar a subsequent claim, thus requiring an evidentiary hearing on competency.
• Rose v. The Nashua Bd. OF Educ. & its Members
  679 F.2d 279· 1st Cir.· 1982-06-03 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the school board's policy of temporarily suspending bus routes for vandalism, even if it affects innocent students, does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• Landmark Land Co. OF Okla., Inc. v. R.E. "Buck" Buchanan
  874 F.2d 717· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the takings, substantive due process, and equal protection claims were not ripe for review because the city had not reached a final decision regarding the property's development, and that procedural due process requirements were satisfied by the available hear
• Franz v. United States
  707 F.2d 582· D.C. Cir.· 1983-05-10 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the government officials administering the Witness Protection Program are constitutionally accountable for infringing upon a father's rights to companionship with his children by facilitating their relocation and concealment without adequate procedural protect
• Johnson v. United States
  628 F.2d 187· D.C. Cir.· 1980-05-08 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the Civil Service Commission properly considered hearsay evidence, that substantial evidence supported the employee's removal, and that the lack of subpoena power did not violate due process rights.
• Gustave Zurak v. Regan
  550 F.2d 86· 2d Cir.· 1977-02-07 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the district court's order mandating strict processing of conditional release applications by eligibility date and within a 60-90 day window was an unwarranted federal interference with state prison administration.
• 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.
• 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
• Costello v. Town OF Fairfield
  811 F.2d 782· 2d Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 21×
  The court held that appellants were accorded all the process they were due, as post-deprivation remedies were adequate for their claims regarding pension calculations.
• Knaubert v. Goldsmith
  791 F.2d 722· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-09 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the habeas corpus petition or denying the motion for appointment of counsel, as the petitioner's claims were either procedurally barred, fairly adjudicated in state court, or did not warrant federal intervention.
• Mims v. Shapp
  744 F.2d 946· 3d Cir.· 1984-09-17 ·cited 21×
  The court held that the prisoner's prolonged administrative segregation, reviewed through subjective evaluations by prison officials, did not violate his due process rights, and thus the damages award was reversed.
• Carillon Community Residential v. Seminole Cnty.
  45 So. 3d 7· Fla. 5th DCA· 2010-07-02 ·cited 20×
  Petitioners sought certiorari review of a circuit court order upholding the Seminole County Board's approval of a PUD amendment for a student housing complex adjacent to their subdivision. The Fifth District affirmed, holding that neighboring property owners are not entitled to c
• DOE v. Doe and E. Doe
  903 F.2d 499· 7th Cir.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the Department of Social Services' failure to investigate a child abuse report did not violate federal due process rights, as the state has no affirmative constitutional duty to protect individuals from private actors, and the statute did not create a property
• 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.
• Jones v. LOS Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist.
  702 F.2d 203· 9th Cir.· 1983-03-25 ·cited 20×
  The court held that while the district court correctly found a procedural due process violation regarding property interest, it erred in finding a liberty interest deprivation. Damages must be reconsidered based solely on the property interest violation.
• Chrysler Corp. v. Fedders Corp.
  670 F.2d 1316· 3d Cir.· 1982-01-25 ·cited 20×
  The filing of a lis pendens under the New Jersey statute does not constitute a "taking" of property without due process of law, as it does not deprive the owner of possession or use and merely provides notice of an existing claim.
• AJA Assocs. v. Army Corps OF Eng'rs & Charles T. Myers, III
  817 F.2d 1070· 3d Cir.· 1987-05-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that due process does not require an agency to grant an informal oral hearing if the applicant failed to request one during the comment period and did not demonstrate a need for it.
• Nash v. Auburn Univ.
  812 F.2d 655· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-16 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the students received constitutionally adequate notice and hearing procedures, and that the evidence supported the finding of academic dishonesty.
• Martin v. Orrin L. Helstad
  699 F.2d 387· 7th Cir.· 1983-02-02 ·cited 18×
  A potential law school student who procures acceptance through fraudulent misrepresentations does not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in attending the university.
• Hilary Davis v. Page
  640 F.2d 599· 5th Cir.· 1981-03-23 ·cited 18×
  The dissenting judge argues that federal habeas corpus relief is an inappropriate vehicle for addressing state child custody disputes, and that federal courts should defer to state courts in such matters.
• Gennaro Basciano v. Herkimer
  605 F.2d 605· 2d Cir.· 1978-11-15 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the City's procedure for determining eligibility for accident disability retirement benefits, as applied to the plaintiff, satisfied the requirements of due process.
• S. Ohio Coal Co. v. Donovan
  774 F.2d 693· 6th Cir.· 1985-10-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the district courts had jurisdiction to hear the operators' constitutional due process claims challenging the Mine Commission's Rule 44, and that the claims were not mooted by settlements with miners, nor barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
• Crocker v. Hakes
  616 F.2d 237· 5th Cir.· 1980-05-02 ·cited 17×
  The court held that the city council's actions did not violate the appellant's constitutional rights, and therefore affirmed the grant of summary judgment.
• Toney-El v. Franzen
  777 F.2d 1224· 7th Cir.· 1985-11-20 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claim for deprivation of liberty due to an erroneous calculation of his release date failed to state a violation of procedural due process because adequate state remedies were available.
• Rixson Merle Perry v. Fed. Bureau OF Investigation
  759 F.2d 1271· 7th Cir.· 1985-04-11 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the FBI's dissemination of information to other federal agencies did not violate due process, as the information was unverified leads requiring further investigation and did not constitute a "stigma plus" deprivation of liberty.
• Cnty. OF Pasco v. Chris and Wendy Riehl
  620 So. 2d 229· Fla. 2d DCA· 1993-06-16 ·cited 14×
  The County of Pasco appealed a trial court order permanently enjoining enforcement of a dangerous dog classification under Florida Statute 767.12, arguing the statute was constitutional. The appellate court affirmed, holding that section 767.12 violates procedural due process bec
• 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.
• Hosea Simmons and Andrea Williams v. William Ryan Drew & the Hous. Auth. of the City of Milwaukee
  716 F.2d 1160· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 14×
  A public housing agency must provide a hearing before expelling a participant from a rent assistance program if it cannot make retroactive payments for benefits lost during the expulsion period.