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

• Amstar Corp. (a v. S/S Alexandros T.
  664 F.2d 904· 4th Cir.· 1981-11-10 ·cited 30×
  The court held that Rule C of the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims is constitutional as applied to in rem proceedings, and that the district court properly assessed damages for cargo loss.
• Delbert Kaahanui Wakinekona v. Antone Olim
  664 F.2d 708· 9th Cir.· 1981-05-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that state regulations creating preconditions for prison transfer establish a liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and this interest is not negated by a state tort claims statute providing post-deprivation redress.
• Aurora Enters., Inc. v. State
  395 So. 2d 604· Fla. 3d DCA· 1981-03-24 ·cited 30×
  Aurora Enterprises challenges an emergency suspension of its liquor license entered without a prior hearing by the Florida Department of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco. The court held that while emergency suspensions without pre-hearing are permissible, due process requires a pr
• Lock v. Jenkins
  641 F.2d 488· 7th Cir.· 1981-02-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the conditions of confinement for pretrial detainees, specifically prolonged periods in small cells without sufficient out-of-cell time, amounted to punishment and violated their due process rights. The court also found certain instances of tear gas use uncons
• Wagner v. Gilligan
  609 F.2d 866· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-19 ·cited 30×
  A prisoner in an Ohio penal institution does not possess a liberty or property interest sufficient to evoke a right to procedural due process for parole.
• Pas P. Torres, Jr. v. First State Bank OF Sierra Cnty.
  588 F.2d 1322· 10th Cir.· 1978-12-18 ·cited 30×
  A state court's erroneous order, even if violating due process, does not constitute "under color of law" for a § 1983 claim when private parties are involved and the state merely provides the forum.
• Davis v. Vill. Park II Realty Co.
  578 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the alleged chilling effect on First Amendment rights, coupled with potential nominal damages and attorney fees, is sufficient to prevent a civil rights claim from becoming moot, even if injunctive relief is no longer possible.
• Khalid Choudhry v. Jenkins
  559 F.2d 1085· 7th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 30×
  Summary judgment for the employer was proper because the employee's speech, despite being on a matter of public concern, was disruptive to the essential functions of the prison and outweighed his First Amendment rights.
• Thompson v. Parole Supervisor Burke
  556 F.2d 231· 3d Cir.· 1977-06-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict for Parole Board Member Jefferson, as the record was insufficient to determine if he provided constitutionally adequate due process or if he is entitled to immunity.
• Staton v. Mayes
  552 F.2d 908· 10th Cir.· 1977-02-15 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge would apply the rule of necessity, finding that alleged bias of school board members did not disqualify them from hearing a dismissal proceeding.
• Bates v. Sponberg
  547 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1976-12-20 ·cited 30×
  A public agency's disregard of its own regulations does not violate constitutional due process rights unless the procedure itself is fundamentally unfair. The Board of Regents' review of the Grievance Committee's report, even without reviewing the full record, met the minimal req
• Ryan v. Aurora City Bd. OF Educ.
  540 F.2d 222· 6th Cir.· 1976-08-02 ·cited 30×
  A non-tenured teacher under state law does not possess a "legitimate claim of entitlement" to continued employment under Roth and Sindermann, and thus has no federal due process right to a hearing or statement of reasons for non-renewal, even if school board regulations suggest o
• Cameron v. Fastoff
  543 F.2d 971· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-22 ·cited 30×
  The court held that petitioners failed to exhaust state remedies for their federal constitutional claims, but affirmed the dismissal on the merits for the claim regarding probable cause for the search warrants.
• Srisuda Mahavongsanan v. Hall
  529 F.2d 448· 5th Cir.· 1976-03-26 ·cited 30×
  The court held that judicial review of purely academic decisions by universities is unwarranted, and due process protections apply only to disciplinary actions, not academic dismissals.
• Cisternas-Estay v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  531 F.2d 155· 3d Cir.· 1976-02-25 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to the Board of Immigration Appeals' review of deportation proceedings, and that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear probability of persecution or raise certain issues before the administrative body.
• Hattie M. Blunt v. Marion Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  515 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the school board's finding of incompetency, and the teacher's dismissal did not violate her constitutional rights to substantive due process, equal protection, or procedural due process.
• Beall Constr. Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Comm'n
  507 F.2d 1041· 8th Cir.· 1974-12-18 ·cited 30×
  The court affirmed the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission's order, finding the Occupational Safety and Health Act constitutional as applied and its enforcement procedures valid, and that the petitioner's violations were supported by substantial evidence.
• Bradford v. Weinstein
  519 F.2d 728· 4th Cir.· 1974-11-22 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judge holds that state prisoners challenging parole procedures must first exhaust state remedies and then pursue habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action.
• United States ex rel. Rodney R. Haymes v. Montanye
  505 F.2d 977· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-04 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a prisoner transferred to another facility without a hearing may have been denied due process if the transfer was punitive, and the mere fact of dislocation can constitute sufficient hardship.
• Strickland v. Inlow
  485 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1973-08-29 ·cited 30×
  The dissenting judges argue that the panel's reversal based on substantive due process was improper, as the case did not involve an invasion of specifically protected federal constitutional rights.
• Ann M. Zimmerer, Ph.D. v. Spencer
  485 F.2d 176· 5th Cir.· 1973-08-28 ·cited 30×
  A non-tenured teacher with a legitimate claim of entitlement to reemployment based on institutional policies and practices has a property interest protected by due process, and the court may award appropriate relief for denial of that process.
• McENTEGGART v. Cataldo
  451 F.2d 1109· 1st Cir.· 1971-12-01 ·cited 30×
  A college may deny contract renewal to a non-tenured professor based on interpersonal difficulties and disruption of departmental harmony, provided these reasons are not trivial or factually unsupported.
• Mailloux v. Kiley
  448 F.2d 1242· 1st Cir.· 1971-09-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that sanctions against a teacher for conduct not previously deemed impermissible, without notice, violate due process.
• Tyler Pipe & Foundry Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  406 F.2d 1272· 5th Cir.· 1969-02-11 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the National Labor Relations Board erred by failing to conduct a hearing on the company's objections to a representation election, where the union allegedly used pervasive falsehoods and misrepresentations.
• Thompson v. The NEW York Cent. R.R. Co.
  361 F.2d 137· 2d Cir.· 1966-05-17 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding seniority transfers is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Adjustment Board, not the courts. The second claim under the LMRDA was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Sovich v. Esperdy
  319 F.2d 21· 2d Cir.· 1963-05-15 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a remand for further consideration is an act of simple justice, given the potential misinterpretation of the statute and the drastic consequences to the alien.
• United States v. Stepler
  258 F.2d 310· 3d Cir.· 1958-07-23 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the defendant was denied procedural due process when the local board refused to reopen his classification after being notified of an erroneous basis for denying his ministerial exemption claim.
• Tannenbaum v. Siobhan H. Shea
  133 So. 3d 1056· Fla. 4th DCA· 2014-01-08 ·cited 29×·via Due Process (Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard)
  A former husband appeals a trial court's order vacating a provision in an agreed child support judgment that divested the court of jurisdiction over a $70,000 money judgment. The appellate court reverses, holding that the divestiture provision did not violate public policy becaus
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. Schultz
  948 So. 2d 1027· Fla. 5th DCA· 2007-02-23 ·cited 29×
  Progressive Express Insurance Company sought certiorari review of a fee award in a PIP insurance dispute where the county court awarded attorney's fees of $193,750 (including a 2.5x multiplier) for pursuing a claim involving only $1,315.30 in unpaid chiropractic bills. The Fifth
• Lindsey v. Merrill King and Priscilla King
  894 So. 2d 1058· Fla. 1st DCA· 2005-02-02 ·cited 29×
  The appellate court granted a petition for a writ of certiorari, finding that the circuit court improperly dismissed an appeal for failure to timely file a brief. The court held that such a dismissal, without prior warning, violated the appellant's procedural due process rights.
• Miller v. Miller
  671 So. 2d 849· Fla. 5th DCA· 1996-04-12 ·cited 29×
  In this family law appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's modification of child custody from father to mother, holding that the trial court committed reversible error by refusing to allow cross-examination of the Guardian Ad Litem whose report was p
• P.C. v. McLAUGHLIN
  913 F.2d 1033· 2d Cir.· 1990-09-06 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff's alleged rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations, or it was objectively reasonable for the defendants to believe their actions did not violate those rig
• Maples v. Martin
  858 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1988-11-02 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the professors' transfers did not violate their due process rights, and while one professor's speech addressed a matter of public concern, the university's interest in efficient administration outweighed his free speech interest.
• Marshall v. City OF Cape Coral
  797 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1986-09-03 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to raise genuine issues of material fact regarding his procedural due process, substantive due process, and First Amendment claims, and that the supervisor had absolute immunity for defamation. The court also found the district court's all
• Praprotnik v. City OF ST. Louis
  798 F.2d 1168· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-19 ·cited 29×
  The dissenting judge argues that the evidence was insufficient to support findings of municipal liability and a First Amendment violation, and that a new trial on damages is warranted due to an improper jury instruction.
• Unified Sch. Dist. NO. 480 v. Epperson
  583 F.2d 1118· 10th Cir.· 1978-08-31 ·cited 29×
  A local school district is not an arm of the state and thus not protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity, allowing for a money judgment for procedural due process violations.
• Cook v. City OF Price
  566 F.2d 699· 10th Cir.· 1977-12-16 ·cited 29×
  The court held that selective enforcement of a zoning ordinance does not violate equal protection unless there is intentional or purposeful discrimination, and that a procedural due process claim cannot be raised for the first time in a post-trial memorandum without consent.
• Stewart v. Bailey
  556 F.2d 281· 5th Cir.· 1977-07-22 ·cited 29×
  The court held that the district court erred in failing to adjudicate the First Amendment claim, which should be reversed and remanded for trial.
• Edwards v. Selective Serv. Local Bd. NO. 111
  432 F.2d 287· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-15 ·cited 29×
• J.G. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  22 So. 3d 774· Fla. 4th DCA· 2009-11-18 ·cited 28×
  Parents appeal the trial court's termination of their parental rights to their child. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the termination was supported by competent substantial evidence of the parents' failure to comply with case plans, ongoing substance abuse and criminal
• Verizon Bus. Network Servs., Inc. v. Dep't OF Corr. & Securas Techs., Inc.
  988 So. 2d 1148· Fla. 1st DCA· 2008-08-04 ·cited 28×
  Verizon and Global-Tel Link challenged the Department of Corrections' award of an inmate telephone services contract to Securas Technologies. The court held that the Secretary violated procedural due process by both making the initial contract award decision and later entering th
• Raleigh Wilson, Sr. v. Cnty. OF Orange
  881 So. 2d 625· Fla. 5th DCA· 2004-08-06 ·cited 28×
  The Wilsons appealed the dismissal of their complaint alleging that Orange County violated their constitutional rights through code enforcement procedures. The court reversed the dismissal of all five counts, holding that the Wilsons sufficiently pleaded a § 1983 claim and proper
• E.I. DuPONT DE Nemours & Co. v. Lambert
  654 So. 2d 226· Fla. 2d DCA· 1995-04-21 ·cited 28×
  The trial court erred by setting aside a confidentiality order without affording DuPont procedural due process, specifically the opportunity to be heard.
• 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
• Margo P. Cohen v. Bd. OF Trs. OF THE Univ. OF Med. & Dentistry OF NEW Jersey
  867 F.2d 1455· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-10 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court's order granting partial summary judgment and enjoining the university was an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• Domegan v. Fair
  859 F.2d 1059· 1st Cir.· 1988-10-20 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the denial of the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds was not an abuse of discretion, as the plaintiff's allegations, if true, demonstrated a violation of clearly established law.
• Project Release v. Prevost
  722 F.2d 960· 2d Cir.· 1983-10-24 ·cited 28×
  The court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment, finding that the challenged provisions of the New York Mental Hygiene Law meet federal constitutional due process minima on their face.
• Burris v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., Inc.
  713 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Burris did not have a property interest in his employment renewal and that the alleged liberty deprivations did not rise to constitutional concern, but remanded the First Amendment claim for further factual determination.
• Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm'n v. BAY Shipbuilding Corp.
  668 F.2d 304· 7th Cir.· 1981-12-31 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the district court erred by not allowing the respondent an opportunity for a hearing on the issues raised.
• Dist. 28 v. Wellmore Coal Corp.
  609 F.2d 1083· 4th Cir.· 1979-11-15 ·cited 28×
  Resort to state judicial processes by private parties does not, in itself, transform them into state actors for purposes of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, absent specific circumstances like the invocation of an immediately enforceable state judgment.