Mullane Standard

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

• Grayden v. Rhodes
  345 F.3d 1225· 11th Cir.· 2003-09-17 ·cited 87×
  The court held that the tenants were entitled to contemporaneous and personal notice of their right to appeal their evictions, and that the code enforcement officer was not entitled to qualified immunity because his conduct violated clearly established constitutional rights. The
• Weinberger v. Kendrick
  698 F.2d 61· 2d Cir.· 1982-07-14 ·cited 78×
  The court reaffirms its prior decision affirming the approval of a class action settlement, clarifying its reasoning and correcting a factual statement.
• United States v. Braunig
  553 F.2d 777· 2d Cir.· 1977-04-11 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the appellant waived the argument that notice of eviction was constitutionally deficient, and that the admission of similar act evidence and denial of the motion to dismiss mail fraud counts were proper.
• Sanders v. Levy
  558 F.2d 636· 2d Cir.· 1976-06-30 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering the defendant fund to bear the cost of identifying class members, distinguishing this from notice costs and emphasizing the fiduciary relationship.
• Vosilla v. Rosado
  944 So. 2d 289· Fla.· 2006-11-09 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that notice of a tax deed sale sent in compliance with statutory requirements violates due process when the taxing authority has actual notice of the property owner's changed address but sends notice to the former address. The Court disapproved the
• Reliable Elec. Co., Inc. v. Olson Constr. Co.
  726 F.2d 620· 10th Cir.· 1984-01-24 ·cited 33×
  The court held that discharging a creditor's claim without providing reasonable notice of the confirmation hearing violates due process, rendering the claim nondischargeable.
• Menkarell v. Bureau OF Narcotics
  463 F.2d 88· 3d Cir.· 1972-06-20 ·cited 26×
  The court held that the summary forfeiture proceedings violated due process because the notice by publication was not reasonably calculated to inform the owner of the seizure and forfeiture, given that his name and address were known.
• In re GAC Corp. v. Callahan
  681 F.2d 1295· 11th Cir.· 1982-08-02 ·cited 25×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court did not err in disallowing the class proof of claim and the punitive damages claim, and that the notice by publication of the Claims Bar Order complied with due process.
• DELTA Prop. Mgmt. v. Profile Invs., Inc.
  87 So. 3d 765· Fla.· 2012-03-08 ·cited 21×
  Delta Property Management challenges a tax deed issued by Profile Investments after Delta failed to receive proper notice of the tax sale. The Florida Supreme Court holds that when certified mail notice of a tax sale is returned undeliverable, the clerk must take additional reaso
• In re Longardner & Assocs., Inc.
  855 F.2d 455· 7th Cir.· 1988-08-24 ·cited 19×
  The court held that failure to receive notice of the entry of a confirmation order does not alone provide grounds for extending the time to appeal, and that revocation of a confirmation order requires a showing of actual fraudulent intent, not merely inaccuracies.
• DELTA Prop. Mgmt., Inc. v. Profile Invs., Inc.
  875 So. 2d 443· Fla.· 2004-05-13 ·cited 18×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a clerk of court mails notice of a tax deed sale, the clerk must use the address of the titleholder as it appears on the latest tax assessment roll available at the time of mailing, not merely the address provided in the tax collector's st
• Anne E. Miles v. Dist. OF Columbia
  510 F.2d 188· D.C. Cir.· 1975-03-21 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the District of Columbia failed to provide the property owner with constitutionally adequate notice before demolishing her buildings, thus violating due process and entitling her to just compensation.
• Richard Horn and all others similarly situated v. City OF Chicago & Datacom Sys. Corp.
  860 F.2d 700· 7th Cir.· 1988-09-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the demand notices provided constitutionally sufficient notice of the opportunity to contest parking violations, reversing the district court's finding of a due process violation.
• Potter v. Castle Constr. Co.
  355 F.2d 212· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-05 ·cited 14×
  The Court held that the district court erred in granting a preliminary injunction because the question of adequate notice in a representation election proceeding is a question of fact committed to the National Labor Relations Board's primary determination, and such determinations
• Deutsch v. Global Fin. Servs., LLC
  976 So. 2d 680· Fla. 2d DCA· 2008-03-19 ·cited 13×
  Summary judgment in favor of the party seeking to quiet title was improper where genuine issues of material fact remain regarding whether the property owner received adequate notice of the tax sale, specifically whether taxing authorities knew or should have known of a change of
• United States v. ONE Urban LOT Located AT 1 St. A-1
  885 F.2d 994· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a timely filed verified answer containing all required information can satisfy the standing requirement normally fulfilled by a claim in an in rem forfeiture proceeding, and that the district court abused its discretion by striking such an answer and entering
• Zimmer Paper Prods. Inc. v. Berger & Montague, P.C.
  758 F.2d 86· 3d Cir.· 1985-03-22 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a plaintiff's allegations of class counsel's failure to take reasonable follow-up steps after an initial notice with a low response rate, despite a large settlement fund, were sufficient to state a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, precluding dismissal or su
• Springbrook Commons, Ltd. v. Lakeisha Brown
  761 So. 2d 1192· Fla. 4th DCA· 2000-06-28 ·cited 11×
  A court cannot enter a money judgment for costs against a tenant in an eviction action if service was only by posting the complaint on the property and the tenant did not appear.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. Appeal of Pinney Dock & Transp. Co.
  771 F.2d 762· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-29 ·cited 11×
  The court held that appellants did not receive constitutionally inadequate notice and failed to establish grounds for equitable relief from the consummation order due to alleged fraudulent concealment.
• Hugel v. McNELL
  886 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1989-09-21 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the district court properly asserted personal jurisdiction over the McNeils and that service of process was constitutionally sufficient, thus affirming the denial of their motion for relief from the default judgment.
• Small Engine Shop, Inc. v. Concetta Cangelosi Cascio
  878 F.2d 883· 5th Cir.· 1989-08-04 ·cited 9×
  The court held that Louisiana Revised Statute § 13:3886, as interpreted by the district court to be the sole mechanism for actual notice in foreclosure actions, violates the Due Process Clause by impermissibly shifting the entire burden of ensuring notice to the property owner.
• Little v. D'Aloia
  759 So. 2d 17· Fla. 2d DCA· 2000-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The Littles appeal a foreclosure judgment on an administrative lien imposed by the City of Temple Terrace for code violations. The court held that the City violated due process requirements by failing to provide proper notice of the hearing, despite having actual knowledge of the
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. PAN Am. World Airways, Inc.
  897 F.2d 1499· 9th Cir.· 1990-03-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an individual's right to bring a private ADEA action terminates upon the EEOC's commencement of an enforcement action, and the EEOC is not constitutionally required to notify individuals of this consequence.
• Arcoren v. Wenton Peters and John Schooler
  811 F.2d 392· 8th Cir.· 1987-02-02 ·cited 8×
• Loyd v. Loyd
  731 F.2d 393· 7th Cir.· 1984-03-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as the administrator's actions did not constitute state action, and due process claims were satisfied by proper notice and opportunity to
• McKEE v. Heggy
  703 F.2d 479· 10th Cir.· 1983-03-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the notice provided to Mr. McKee before the sale of his car was insufficient to satisfy due process requirements, and that summary judgment for defendant Heggy was improperly granted.
• Jackson v. Le Ctr. on Fourth, LLC
  17 F.4th 1326· 11th Cir.· 2021-11-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the Jacksons received sufficient notice to satisfy due process, and the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in barring their nominal claims.
• Burns v. Elrod
  757 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1985-03-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the defendants' efforts to notify potential class members of the settlement were not reasonable under the circumstances and did not satisfy due process requirements.
• Letcher Adams and Claude Alston v. Harris
  643 F.2d 995· 4th Cir.· 1981-02-27 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the stock paragraph notices of Social Security disability denial at the reconsideration stage were constitutionally adequate, satisfying due process and statutory requirements.
• Albajon v. Gugliotta
  72 F. Supp. 2d 1362· S.D. Fla.· 1999-09-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were barred by sovereign immunity, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, lack of state action, and failure to establish a violation of clearly established constitutional rights.
• Vail v. Derwinski
  946 F.2d 589· 8th Cir.· 1991-10-08 ·cited 6×
  The VA's right of indemnity survives Minnesota's anti-deficiency statute, but the VA must make a good faith effort to provide personal notice to the veteran before foreclosing non-judicially.
• Weigner v. The City OF NEW York
  852 F.2d 646· 2d Cir.· 1988-07-14 ·cited 6×
  The dissenting judge argues that New York City's tax foreclosure procedures are constitutionally invalid due to insufficient notice and arbitrary "release" provisions, violating due process and equal protection.
• RUD v. Dahl
  578 F.2d 674· 7th Cir.· 1978-06-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Illinois statutory scheme for adjudicating incompetency does not violate due process by failing to mandate adequate notice, the alleged incompetent's presence, or the appointment of counsel.
• Velazquez v. Thompson
  451 F.2d 202· 2d Cir.· 1971-11-03 ·cited 6×
  The court held that New York's summary eviction procedures, specifically the service of process under Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 735, as amended, do not violate constitutional due process guarantees.
• Gilberto and Sandra Gamez v. First Union Nat'l Bank OF Fla.
  31 So. 3d 220· Fla. 4th DCA· 2010-03-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the notice provided under section 56.21, Florida Statutes, satisfied the Gamezes' procedural due process rights, and thus the trial court did not err in denying their motion to quash the levy authorization.
• Gross v. Barnett Banks, Inc.
  934 F. Supp. 1340· M.D. Fla.· 1995-11-22 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Anti-Injunction Act permitted enjoining state court proceedings that sought to relitigate claims already resolved by a federal class action settlement, and that the movant was not entitled to relief from the judgment due to inadequate notice.
• Goldhofer Fahrzeugwerk GmbH & Co. v. The United States
  885 F.2d 858· Fed. Cir.· 1989-09-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that posting bulletin notice of liquidation alone satisfies statutory, regulatory, and constitutional due process requirements, and that failure to send courtesy notice does not invalidate the liquidation or extend the protest period.
• In re Park Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Samuels
  766 F.2d 261· 6th Cir.· 1985-07-05 ·cited 4×
  The constitutionality of Bankruptcy Rule 704(c)(1) does not depend on the availability of relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 55(c) and 60(b).
• In re Alvie Stanley Linkous v. Alvie Stanley Linkous
  990 F.2d 160· 4th Cir.· 1993-04-01 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the notice provided to Piedmont was inadequate to satisfy due process requirements for a Section 506(a) valuation hearing, thus vacating the confirmation order as to Piedmont's claims.
• Sarit v. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration
  987 F.2d 10· 1st Cir.· 1993-02-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the DEA provided constitutionally adequate notice of the forfeiture proceeding and that the district court correctly dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction after finding the notice sufficient.
• Camp v. Morey (In Re Gov't Sec. Corp.)
  107 B.R. 1012· S.D. Fla.· 1989-12-12 ·cited 2×
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court erred in allowing a late claim because the notice provided by the trustee was adequate under SIPA, and the evidence of non-receipt was insufficient and inadmissible hearsay.
• Sterling v. Env't Control Bd. OF the City OF NEW York & the City of N.Y.
  793 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1986-06-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the 1979 statute's 'nail and mail' service procedure was unconstitutional as applied to absentee landlords because it failed to provide notice reasonably calculated to apprise them of violations.
• Goldstein v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg.
  389 So. 3d 678· Fla. 3d DCA· 2024-03-13 ·cited 1×
  The appellate court affirmed the revocation of Alan Goldstein's real estate broker license. Goldstein argued the Department lacked jurisdiction because his license had expired and he was denied due process for lack of notice, but the court found both arguments lacked merit.
• In re Parasailing, Inc
  2020 WL 10355092· M.D. Fla.· 2022-11-16 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff must undertake a reasonable investigation to determine mailing addresses for known potential claimants before the limitation of liability proceeding can be considered final.
• Valderrama v. United States
  326 F. Supp. 2d 1333· S.D. Fla.· 2004-07-22 ·cited 1×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to hear claims challenging the legitimacy of a procedurally sound administrative forfeiture, and that the government provided adequate notice of forfeiture proceedings.
• Signature Flight Support LLC v. Cella
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-25
  The court granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve defendants via alternative means, allowing email service on one defendant but denying it for another.
• In re LoanCare Data Sec. Breach Litig.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-24
  Loancare data breach plaintiffs settled their claims for $5.9 million against defendants FNF and LoanCare, affecting approximately 1.3 million class members whose personal information was compromised in a November 2023 cybersecurity incident. The court conditionally certified the
• Chanel, Inc. v. 21914270
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-02-23
  The court granted the plaintiff's motion to authorize alternate service of process on foreign defendants via electronic messaging and website posting.
• Warner v. Hillsborough Cnty. Clerk of Courts
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-02-12
  The court held that the Clerk of Courts provided adequate notice of unclaimed funds forfeiture through publication and that the escheatment of unclaimed property does not constitute a taking requiring compensation.
• Ortiz v. THE Beverly Hills SPA & Salon LLC
  S.D. Fla.· 2022-09-28
  The court held that the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve by publication was denied due to procedural deficiencies and insufficient substantive efforts to locate the defendant, but granted an extension of time to perfect personal service.