Pre-Deprivation Hearing

74 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• 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.
• Burtnieks v. The City OF NEW York
  716 F.2d 982· 2d Cir.· 1983-08-26 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment because the existence of an emergency and the impracticality of a pre-deprivation hearing were material facts that were contested and required further factual development.
• Sinaloa Lake Owners Ass'n v. City OF Simi Valley
  882 F.2d 1398· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-06 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment taking claim was not ripe because they failed to seek compensation through available state procedures, but their Fourteenth Amendment due process claim was ripe and stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
• Chongris v. Bd. OF Appeals OF the Town OF Andover
  811 F.2d 36· 1st Cir.· 1987-02-12 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to state federally cognizable causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as their claims regarding building permit revocation and victualler's license denial did not violate due process or constitutional rights.
• Vail v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Paris Union Sch. Dist. NO. 95
  706 F.2d 1435· 7th Cir.· 1983-04-19 ·cited 63×
  A public employee with a term employment contract has a property interest in continued employment, requiring a meaningful opportunity to be heard before termination.
• Littlefield v. City OF Afton
  785 F.2d 596· 8th Cir.· 1986-01-03 ·cited 51×
  The court held that appellants had a protected property interest in the building permit under Minnesota law, and thus were entitled to procedural due process. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of the procedural due process claim as appellants received adequate notice and
• Patterson v. Coughlin
  761 F.2d 886· 2d Cir.· 1985-05-09 ·cited 40×
  The court held that a state prisoner alleging a deprivation of liberty without constitutionally adequate predeprivation procedures, even if a post-deprivation remedy exists, states a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Keniston v. Roberts
  717 F.2d 1295· 9th Cir.· 1983-10-05 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction for a due process claim, and that the district court abused its discretion by denying leave to amend the complaint.
• Daniels v. Williams
  720 F.2d 792· 4th Cir.· 1983-08-24 ·cited 37×
  The Parratt analysis applies to negligent deprivations of nonproperty interests, and Virginia's common law negligence action provides a meaningful postdeprivation remedy, thus no procedural due process violation occurred.
• Palmer v. Hudson
  697 F.2d 1220· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that intentional destruction of prisoner property is not a due process violation if an adequate state remedy exists, but a prisoner's claim of an unreasonable search motivated by harassment requires further factual determination.
• Nydia Tavarez and Manny Tavarez v. O'Malley
  826 F.2d 671· 7th Cir.· 1987-08-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the prolonged closure of the grocery store after the emergency had passed, without a hearing or opportunity to contest the seizure, constituted a denial of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the district court erred in granting summary judgme
• Soranno's Gasco v. Morgan
  874 F.2d 1310· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-15 ·cited 27×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding retaliatory motivation for permit suspension, precluding summary judgment on First Amendment claims. However, the court affirmed summary judgment on due process claims, finding that public interest justified su
• 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.
• 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.
• Findeisen v. N. E. Indep. Sch. Dist.
  749 F.2d 234· 5th Cir.· 1984-12-26 ·cited 24×
  The court concurred that the record did not entirely exclude the possibility of bad faith termination, which could entitle the plaintiff to relief under section 1983.
• Del's BIG Saver Foods, Inc. v. Carpenter Cook, Inc.
  795 F.2d 1344· 7th Cir.· 1986-07-15 ·cited 23×
  A private party's execution of a state court's ex parte order authorizing property repossession constitutes state action for purposes of a § 1983 claim, and Wisconsin's replevin statute, which allows for ex parte orders secured by a bond and provides for a prompt post-deprivation
• Rawleigh C. Wilson v. The Civil Town OF Clayton
  839 F.2d 375· 7th Cir.· 1988-02-03 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the Parratt doctrine, which allows dismissal of procedural due process claims when an adequate post-deprivation state remedy exists for random and unauthorized acts, does not apply to claims against municipalities acting under official policy or to claims wher
• Greco v. Guss
  775 F.2d 161· 7th Cir.· 1985-10-01 ·cited 22×
  The court held that while the seizure of property might have involved state action, the availability of post-deprivation remedies, such as tort actions, satisfied due process requirements, thus affirming the summary judgment.
• Cnty. OF Pasco v. Chris and Wendy Riehl
  635 So. 2d 17· Fla.· 1994-04-14 ·cited 21×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld a district court decision finding section 767.12 of the Florida Statutes unconstitutional because it allowed the government to classify a dog as dangerous and impose substantial restrictions on the owner's property without providing a pre-deprivat
• In re Special March 1981 Grand Jury. Appeal of Almond Pharmacy, Inc.
  753 F.2d 575· 7th Cir.· 1985-01-23 ·cited 21×
  The court held that while the district court erred in releasing grand jury records without notice to the owners, the pharmacies are not entitled to relief because they have adequate alternative remedies in state proceedings and the equitable relief sought is extraordinary.
• 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.
• Sewell v. Jefferson Cnty. Fiscal Court
  863 F.2d 461· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not waive her right to a jury trial on her section 1981 and 1983 claims, as the waiver was not clear, knowing, or voluntary.
• 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.
• Giglio v. Dunn
  732 F.2d 1133· 2d Cir.· 1984-04-20 ·cited 16×
  A pre-coercion hearing is not constitutionally required when a post-deprivation remedy, such as an Article 78 proceeding, is available and provides a meaningful opportunity to challenge the voluntariness of a resignation.
• 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
• Freeman v. Blair
  793 F.2d 166· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the officials were not entitled to absolute immunity for decisions to inspect without a warrant or for license suspensions, and that the law regarding warrantless administrative searches and due process for license suspensions was clearly established, thus den
• L.R. Bretz v. Zollie Kelman
  722 F.2d 503· 9th Cir.· 1983-12-20 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an alleged plan to prosecute a person, including witness coercion and falsifying evidence, does not state an actionable wrong under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if it fails to allege the violation of a constitutionally protected interest.
• Erle E. Peacock, Jr. v. Bd. OF Regents OF the Univs. & State Colleges OF Ariz.
  510 F.2d 1324· 9th Cir.· 1975-02-04 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a post-suspension hearing, rather than a pre-suspension hearing, was sufficient to satisfy due process for a university department head suspended from administrative duties, given the university's interest in efficient administration.
• L.E. Eguia v. Tompkins
  756 F.2d 1130· 5th Cir.· 1985-04-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact remain regarding the timeliness of the procedural due process afforded to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's political association and defamation claims were improperly dismissed.
• PFZ Props., Inc. v. Rodriguez
  928 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process or equal protection, as the post-deprivation remedies provided by Puerto Rico law were constitutionally adequate and the alleged actions did not rise to the level of a f
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. Hardy, M.D.
  905 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 12×
• Signet Constr. Corp. v. Borg
  775 F.2d 486· 2d Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 12×
  The court held that Signet received constitutionally adequate due process through a combination of informal exchanges, a formal hearing regarding its default, and the availability of state court remedies for contract disputes.
• Barron Collier v. City OF Springdale
  733 F.2d 1311· 8th Cir.· 1984-05-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the availability of adequate state law mechanisms for compensation precludes a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for a taking of property for public use.
• Huxall v. First State Bank
  842 F.2d 249· 10th Cir.· 1988-03-24 ·cited 10×
  The court held that a plaintiff alleging property deprivation without due process must demonstrate they were denied a meaningful opportunity to be heard or avail themselves of available state remedies.
• Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City OF Cape Girardeau
  794 F.2d 330· 8th Cir.· 1986-06-17 ·cited 10×
  The court held that erroneous jury instructions regarding the automatic reverter, the availability of post-deprivation remedies, and the definition of "official policy" prejudiced the appellants' procedural due process claim, requiring reversal.
• Reich v. Beharry
  883 F.2d 239· 3d Cir.· 1989-08-24 ·cited 9×
  The court held that a claim for delayed payment of professional services, even if stemming from a contract with a government entity, does not implicate substantive due process, and adequate state remedies exist for procedural due process claims.
• Hicks v. Feeney
  850 F.2d 152· 3d Cir.· 1988-06-22 ·cited 9×
  The court held that dismissal was an excessive sanction, and an order precluding the plaintiff from establishing actual and punitive damages would have been more appropriate.
• United States v. TWP 17 R 4
  970 F.2d 984· 1st Cir.· 1992-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that posting an arrest warrant for real property in an in rem forfeiture action does not constitute a seizure implicating the Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement, nor does it rise to the level of deprivation requiring a pre-deprivation hearing under the F
• 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
• Cameo Convalescent Ctr., Inc. v. Percy
  800 F.2d 108· 7th Cir.· 1986-08-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment based on the intervening Supreme Court decision in Hudson v. Palmer, as adequate post-deprivation remedies existed under state law.
• 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.
• Yates v. Jamison
  782 F.2d 1182· 4th Cir.· 1986-02-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' due process claim must be dismissed because they have an adequate postdeprivation remedy under state law, specifically an action for inverse condemnation.
• Tomai-Minogue v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.
  770 F.2d 1228· 4th Cir.· 1985-08-19 ·cited 7×
  The dissenting judge holds that the licensee was entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing on the validity of the Maryland judgment and that the Virginia statute did not provide an adequate post-deprivation hearing. The judge also believes the malicious prosecution claim should have
• K.M.T. v. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs.
  608 So. 2d 865· Fla. 1st DCA· 1992-10-22 ·cited 6×
  K.M.T., a nursing assistant, appeals an administrative order confirming her as a perpetrator of neglect and placing her name on the elderly abuse registry after she briefly left an elderly patient unattended in a dining room. The court reverses, holding that HRS violated her proc
• McGEE v. Bauer
  956 F.2d 730· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-14 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, holding that the plaintiff failed to preserve his JNOV motion against the Village and that the building inspector was entitled to qualified immunity.
• Penn Cent. Corp. v. U.S. R.R. Vest Corp.
  955 F.2d 1158· 7th Cir.· 1992-02-04 ·cited 6×
  Indiana's statute allowing private parties to claim abandoned railroad property without a pre-deprivation hearing violates the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.
• I. Bertrand Chernin & Myron Chernin v. Welchans
  844 F.2d 322· 6th Cir.· 1988-04-11 ·cited 6×
  The court should not rule on the constitutionality of the entire Ohio landlord-tenant statute because most issues are moot, except for the one percent fee provision.
• D.A. Delahoussaye v. Seale
  788 F.2d 1091· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the temporary suspension of a warehouse license, followed by a prompt post-deprivation hearing and other procedural safeguards, satisfied the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Campbell v. Shearer
  732 F.2d 531· 6th Cir.· 1984-04-24 ·cited 6×
  A plaintiff must plead and prove that available state remedies are inadequate or systemically defective to state a claim for constitutional deprivation of property under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Swan v. Stoneman
  635 F.2d 97· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-17 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the exhaustion doctrine should not bar Ambrose's due process claim because the available administrative remedies were post-termination and inadequate to provide class-wide relief.