Procedural Due Process

3,616 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 62 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Hinshaw v. Doffer
  785 F.2d 1260· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the evidence was insufficient to support a judgment against the police chief for failure to supervise or train the officer, but sufficient to support judgments against the officer for false arrest and excessive force. The court also held that the officer is fu
• Bridges v. Russell
  757 F.2d 1155· 11th Cir.· 1985-04-15 ·cited 32×
  A prisoner's claim of transfer in retaliation for First Amendment activity can proceed, even if state law does not create a liberty interest in remaining at a particular facility.
• Holley v. The Seminole Cnty. Sch. Dist.
  755 F.2d 1492· 11th Cir.· 1985-03-25 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the school board's hearing procedures did not violate due process, but the First Amendment retaliation claim raised genuine issues of material fact requiring a trial.
• Wheeler v. Mental Health & Mental Retardation Auth. OF Harris Cnty.
  752 F.2d 1063· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was denied constitutional procedural due process when she was not given prior written notice of dismissal reasons and an opportunity to respond, but that she did not establish a violation of MHMRA's internal procedures. The court also vacated the
• Gipson v. Veterans Admin. & the United States
  682 F.2d 1004· D.C. Cir.· 1982-07-13 ·cited 32×
  The court affirmed the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision, finding the proceedings were not procedurally infirm, the charges were supported by substantial evidence, and the removal was not an excessive punishment or improperly motivated.
• Ent. Concepts, Inc., III v. MacIejewski
  631 F.2d 497· 7th Cir.· 1980-09-23 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the Village's adult movie zoning ordinance was unconstitutionally vague and an impermissible prior restraint, and the license revocation ordinance lacked sufficient procedural protections and constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint. The court reversed
• Ventetuolo v. Burke
  596 F.2d 476· 1st Cir.· 1979-03-30 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff did not have a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment due to his status as an unclassified employee serving at will, and that the statements made about him did not rise to the level of defamation or infringe upon a liberty
• Auckland Holmes v. United States Bd. OF Parole & United States Bureau of Prisons
  541 F.2d 1243· 7th Cir.· 1976-09-10 ·cited 32×
  A federal prisoner is entitled to procedural due process before being classified as a "Special Offender" because this designation significantly impacts opportunities for parole, furlough, and transfer, constituting a "grievous loss."
• Bliss O. Bignall, Jr. v. N. Idaho Coll.
  538 F.2d 243· 9th Cir.· 1976-06-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that while the college provided inadequate notice of the reasons for non-renewal, the overall process, including a de novo trial, provided substantial due process, and the college's decision was based on valid, non-discriminatory reasons.
• Ring v. Honorable James R. Schlesinger and Honorable John W. Warner
  502 F.2d 479· D.C. Cir.· 1974-08-16 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's judgment, finding the removal of Mrs. Ring consistent with her constitutional rights and the commanding officer's duty.
• Dozier v. United States
  473 F.2d 866· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-14 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court properly granted summary judgment because there were no genuine issues of material fact regarding procedural due process, and the administrative record supported the termination.
• Cook Cnty. Coll. Teachers Union, Local 1600, Am. Fed'n OF Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Byrd
  456 F.2d 882· 7th Cir.· 1972-03-09 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the class action and in finding that the nonrenewal of probationary faculty contracts was based on constitutionally permissible reasons, not retaliation.
• McFERREN v. Cnty. Bd. OF Educ. OF Fayette Cnty.
  455 F.2d 199· 6th Cir.· 1972-01-28 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a school board's discharge of teachers following a desegregation order, without applying definite objective standards, constituted unlawful racial discrimination, and that back pay awarded as part of equitable reinstatement is not a jury trial issue.
• Farrell v. Lewin Joel, Jr.
  437 F.2d 160· 2d Cir.· 1971-01-20 ·cited 32×
• United States v. Cummins
  425 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the registrant was denied procedural due process by not being informed of the reasons for the State Director's appeal and that there was no basis-in-fact for his I-A classification.
• S. S. Kresge Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  416 F.2d 1225· 6th Cir.· 1969-10-15 ·cited 32×
  The court held that Kresge and its licensees are joint-employers and that the store-wide unit is appropriate, affirming the Board's order to bargain. However, it denied enforcement for Acme's independent Section 8(a)(5) violation due to lack of notice.
• Goldwasser v. Brown
  417 F.2d 1169· D.C. Cir.· 1969-09-17 ·cited 32×
  The dissenting judge would remand the case for a determination of whether the Air Force had sufficient control over foreign students to be required to produce them for a hearing.
• United States v. Al-Majied Muhammad
  364 F.2d 223· 4th Cir.· 1966-07-20 ·cited 32×
  The court held that a registrant's belated claim of conscientious objection, made after an induction order, does not require the draft board to reopen his classification or grant an evidentiary hearing, absent a change in status beyond his control.
• The Pillsbury Co. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n
  354 F.2d 952· 5th Cir.· 1966-01-07 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the FTC's order was not invalid due to alleged congressional interference, as the hearings were public and did not improperly influence the Commission's decision-making process.
• Hanifan v. The United States
  354 F.2d 358· Ct. Cl.· 1965-12-17 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was unlawfully denied a procedural right by the Civil Service Commission's failure to require the production of key witnesses for cross-examination, thus voiding the removal action.
• Uffelman v. United States
  230 F.2d 297· 9th Cir.· 1956-01-27 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the failure to appoint and post 'Advisers to Registrants' did not deny due process because the registrant had ample advice from other sources and suffered no prejudice. It also held that a second Department of Justice hearing was not required and that the refu
• Nils Futch v. Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
  189 So. 3d 131· Fla.· 2016-04-14 ·cited 31×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Fifth District Court of Appeal inappropriately exercised second-tier certiorari jurisdiction to review a circuit court's decision invalidating a driver's license suspension based on a due process violation. The Court quashed the Fifth Distr
• Osanna S. Carmona and Nelson L. Carmona v. Wal-Mart Stores
  81 So. 3d 461· Fla. 2d DCA· 2011-11-18 ·cited 31×
  The Carmonas appealed the denial of their motion for relief from judgment following summary judgment in Wal-Mart's favor in their civil suit arising from Mrs. Carmona's arrest for shoplifting. They claimed they were denied procedural due process at the summary judgment hearing be
• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Roberts
  938 So. 2d 513· Fla. 5th DCA· 2006-03-24 ·cited 31×
  In this administrative driver's license suspension case, the Florida appellate court declined to exercise certiorari jurisdiction over the circuit court's determination that a highway patrol trooper lacked reasonable suspicion to stop the driver's vehicle. The court found the tro
• Herrera v. City OF Miami
  600 So. 2d 561· Fla. 3d DCA· 1992-06-23 ·cited 31×
  A variance reducing parking-space requirements cannot be granted where the applicant has not demonstrated that the land cannot yield a reasonable return under existing zoning or that the hardship was not self-created, or that the project cannot be reduced in size to satisfy zonin
• Hirt v. Polk Cnty. Bd. OF Cnty. Comm'rs & Jack M. Watkins, Sr.
  578 So. 2d 415· Fla. 2d DCA· 1991-04-17 ·cited 31×
  Thomas Hirt challenged a Polk County zoning board's approval of a planned unit development on adjacent property via petition for certiorari. The trial court dismissed the petition, suggesting injunctive relief was the proper remedy. The appellate court reversed, holding that the
• Chandler v. Captain William Baird
  926 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a prisoner's placement in administrative confinement did not violate procedural due process because the relevant Florida rule did not create a liberty interest, and that the prisoner failed to show actual prejudice from alleged restrictions on access to courts
• Jones v. Preuit & Mauldin
  851 F.2d 1321· 11th Cir.· 1988-08-10 ·cited 31×
  The plurality opinion held that private defendants are entitled to qualified immunity in a section 1983 action. The dissenting judges disagreed, arguing that qualified immunity should not extend to private actors.
• Kelly v. Smith
  764 F.2d 1412· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 31×
  The court held that while pre-termination procedures were sufficient, the post-termination procedures were not, and that the employee had a property interest in his continued employment.
• Shawgo v. Spradlin
  701 F.2d 470· 5th Cir.· 1983-03-28 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were afforded due process through a post-suspension hearing and that their privacy interests were not violated by the disciplinary actions taken by the police department.
• Jefferson Fourteenth Assocs. v. Wometco de Puerto RICO, Inc.
  695 F.2d 524· 11th Cir.· 1983-01-10 ·cited 31×
  A district court cannot sua sponte dismiss a case on the merits without providing the plaintiff with notice and an opportunity to be heard.
• McGHEE v. Draper
  564 F.2d 902· 10th Cir.· 1977-10-03 ·cited 31×
  The court held that the trial court erred in directing a verdict against the plaintiff on her liberty interest claim, as the evidence could support a finding that the school board's actions imposed a stigma foreclosing future employment opportunities. The court also found that pr
• Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Pitts
  815 So. 2d 738· Fla. 1st DCA· 2002-05-02 ·cited 30×
  The Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles sought certiorari review of a circuit court decision that quashed an administrative order suspending Victor Lee Pitts' driver's license for driving with an unlawful alcohol level. The circuit court found the hearing officer viol
• Roberts v. State
  732 So. 2d 1127· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-02-24 ·cited 30×
  The Court held that Section 318(b)(6)(A) of the Northwest Timber Compromise amended existing law by establishing new standards for meeting statutory requirements, rather than impermissibly directing a specific outcome in pending litigation.
• United States v. Kelley
  956 F.2d 748· 8th Cir.· 1992-02-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the majority opinion errs by treating Sentencing Commission policy statements as binding law, thereby nullifying judicial discretion in sentencing.
• Torres v. Superintendent OF the Police OF Puerto RICO
  893 F.2d 404· 1st Cir.· 1990-01-08 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' Section 1983 claim for wrongful termination was time-barred because the administrative action did not toll the statute of limitations, and their malicious prosecution claim failed because the alleged conduct did not rise to the level of a const
• Gutzwiller v. Fenik
  860 F.2d 1317· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of sex discrimination and substantive due process violations against the defendants, and that judicial intervention in academic tenure decisions is generally inappropriate.
• Donald v. Polk Cnty.
  836 F.2d 376· 7th Cir.· 1988-01-13 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Donalds' claims were barred by collateral estoppel and that they failed to establish actual damages for procedural due process violations.
• Bolden v. Al Alston
  810 F.2d 353· 2d Cir.· 1987-01-28 ·cited 30×
  Prison officials are entitled to qualified immunity because their actions in disciplinary proceedings did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. The inmate received the minimal due process required for administrative confinement and the Superintendent's Proceeding
• Fitzgerald v. Larson
  769 F.2d 160· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-05 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Supreme Court's decision in Wilson v. Garcia, which mandates that all 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims be characterized as personal injury actions for statute of limitations purposes, applies retrospectively to bar claims filed after the applicable two-year statute
• Horton v. Duford Taylor
  767 F.2d 471· 8th Cir.· 1985-07-11 ·cited 30×
  The majority opinion holds that the dismissal of road-graders is not excepted from the Elrod-Branti rule as a matter of law due to insufficient evidence to raise a factual issue.
• Bennie Stewart, Jr. v. Thigpen
  730 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1984-04-30 ·cited 30×
  A prisoner's failure to move for a directed verdict on certain claims at trial precludes him from raising the sufficiency of the evidence for those claims on appeal, and jury verdicts will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence.
• Lucas v. Benny O. Hodges
  730 F.2d 1493· D.C. Cir.· 1984-03-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a constitutionally protected liberty interest cannot arise solely from internal prison administrative procedures, but must be rooted in state or federal law.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Complas Indus., Inc.
  714 F.2d 729· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-09 ·cited 30×
  The Board violated respondent's due process rights by amending the complaint mid-hearing without adequate notice or adjournment, and the alleged interrogation was not coercive.
• In re Selcraig
  705 F.2d 789· 5th Cir.· 1983-05-27 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the reporter's qualified privilege to protect confidential sources had not yet been overcome because the plaintiff had not yet established a prima facie case for denial of a name-clearing hearing, which is a prerequisite for compelling disclosure for punitive
• Rutherford v. United States
  702 F.2d 580· 5th Cir.· 1983-04-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that available tax refund proceedings do not satisfy due process for claims of harassment and mental anguish, as they do not protect liberty interests.
• Richardson v. James E.T. Koshiba
  693 F.2d 911· 9th Cir.· 1982-12-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that abstention was appropriate in the case.
• Ne. Ga. Radiological Assocs. v. Tidwell
  670 F.2d 507· 5th Cir.· 1982-03-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a physician's medical staff privileges, when established by contract and hospital by-laws, constitute a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, requiring procedural due process before termination.
• Emilio Garcia v. United States
  666 F.2d 960· 5th Cir.· 1982-02-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the plaintiff's discharge from the Witness Protection Program did not violate his constitutional rights, and the United States is protected by sovereign immunity.
• Corriz v. Emilio Naranjo
  667 F.2d 892· 10th Cir.· 1981-12-09 ·cited 30×
  The court held that defendants' objections regarding potential double recovery were not properly preserved for appeal because they failed to make specific objections to the jury instructions or verdict forms as required by Rule 51.