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

• Wuornos v. State
  644 So. 2d 1000· Fla.· 1994-09-22 ·cited 108×
  Aileen Wuornos appealed her death sentence for the murder of Richard Mallory, challenging discovery violations, similar crimes evidence, confession validity, jury instructions, and the constitutionality of Florida's death penalty statute. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed her co
• Wilson v. Taylor
  658 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 107×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the true reason for the plaintiff's discharge, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
• Rebekka Anne Behr v. Campbell
  8 F.4th 1206· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-12 ·cited 106×·via Violation Of Procedural Due Process
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a narrow jurisdictional rule that applies only when a party seeks to appeal a state court judgment in federal district court; it does not bar claims seeking damages for constitutional violations that occurred during state proceedings, even if relate
• 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
• Wilson v. Beebe
  770 F.2d 578· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 105×
  Officer Beebe is protected by official immunity under Michigan law because his actions during the arrest were discretionary.
• Patsy v. Fla. Int'l Univ.
  634 F.2d 900· 5th Cir.· 1981-01-22 ·cited 104×
  The court held that exhaustion of adequate state administrative remedies can be a prerequisite to filing a section 1983 suit, departing from a strict no-exhaustion rule.
• Mathas Brown v. City OF Fort Lauderdale
  923 F.2d 1474· 11th Cir.· 1991-02-19 ·cited 103×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss for claims against the individual defendants based on qualified immunity and against the City for municipal liability under § 1983, and that § 1983 provides the exclusive remedy for §
• Wolf-Lillie v. Sonquist
  699 F.2d 864· 7th Cir.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 102×
  The court held that the sheriff, in his official capacity, was liable for damages resulting from the execution of an outdated writ of restitution due to a pervasive custom of executing stale writs. The court also held that the Parratt v. Taylor doctrine did not bar claims for sub
• Jack A. Braley, D.O. v. Garland Campbell, M.D.
  832 F.2d 1504· 10th Cir.· 1987-11-09 ·cited 100×
  The dissenting judge believes the court should have ordered the attorney to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed and granted the appellees the right to respond.
• Sullivan v. Sch. Bd. OF Pinellas Cnty. & Gus Sakkis
  773 F.2d 1182· 11th Cir.· 1985-10-15 ·cited 100×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's claims were not frivolous on their merits, the district court correctly ruled against her on the Title VII and § 1983 claims and denied her jury trial demand.
• Mister Ralpho v. Bell
  569 F.2d 607· D.C. Cir.· 1977-03-29 ·cited 100×
  A provision in the Micronesian Claims Act purporting to bar judicial review does not preclude review of claims alleging constitutional violations or plain statutory transgressions by the Commission.
• Willis v. Ciccone
  506 F.2d 1011· 8th Cir.· 1974-11-15 ·cited 100×
  A federal prisoner must exhaust administrative remedies before seeking habeas corpus relief, and evidentiary hearings are generally unnecessary for claims of procedural due process violations or factual bases for disciplinary actions.
• Barnett v. The Hous. Auth. OF the City OF Atlanta
  707 F.2d 1571· 11th Cir.· 1983-06-27 ·cited 96×
  The court held that the Atlanta Housing Authority violated Robert Barnett's due process rights by terminating him without cause and without a proper post-termination hearing, and that the Authority waived its claim of immunity from punitive damages due to procedural default.
• Hearn v. The City OF Gainesville & Richard C. Corriveau
  688 F.2d 1328· 11th Cir.· 1982-10-12 ·cited 95×
  The court held that while the employee had a property interest in his job and the supervisor's actions constituted a due process violation, the city was not liable because the supervisor's actions did not represent official policy and the city commission exercised final authority
• Creative Environments, Inc. v. Estabrook
  680 F.2d 822· 1st Cir.· 1982-05-06 ·cited 95×
  The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding constitutional violations, and thus summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co.
  446 F.2d 1301· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-10 ·cited 93×
  The court affirmed the district court's findings of Rule 10b-5 violations and most remedies, but remanded Kline's case for a hearing on the appropriate remedy for his stock option cancellation.
• Everett v. Napper
  833 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-15 ·cited 91×
  The court held that a firefighter's refusal to submit to a urinalysis based on reasonable suspicion did not violate the Fourth Amendment, but the suspension without pay prior to a hearing did violate procedural due process.
• Glenn v. Newman
  614 F.2d 467· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-24 ·cited 90×
  The court held that while the pretermination procedures were constitutionally deficient, the subsequent post-termination hearing cured the due process violation. However, the plaintiff is entitled to backpay for the period between dismissal and the post-termination hearing.
• Lombard v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City OF NEW York
  502 F.2d 631· 2d Cir.· 1974-07-22 ·cited 90×
  The court held that res judicata does not bar a federal claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for denial of procedural due process, even if related issues were litigated in state court, because the federal remedy is supplementary and the plaintiff was deprived of a protected liberty inter
• Skehan v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Bloomsburg State Coll.
  501 F.2d 31· 3d Cir.· 1974-05-03 ·cited 90×
  The court held that a post-termination hearing does not satisfy due process requirements for contract termination and that nominal damages were improperly awarded for a procedural due process violation. The court also remanded for further findings on contractual rights related to
• Ill. State Emps. Union v. Lewis
  473 F.2d 561· 7th Cir.· 1972-09-18 ·cited 90×
  The court held that plaintiffs' discharges for partisan political reasons were constitutionally impermissible.
• Fundiller v. The City OF Cooper City
  777 F.2d 1436· 11th Cir.· 1985-12-11 ·cited 89×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated claims for substantive due process violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against individual officers and the municipality, and that the district court erred in dismissing these claims.
• Jeffries v. Turkey RUN Consol. Sch. Dist.
  492 F.2d 1· 7th Cir.· 1974-02-05 ·cited 89×
  A public employee with no tenure or claim of entitlement to employment, and who was not terminated for a constitutionally impermissible reason, has no constitutional right to a hearing or to a statement of reasons for non-renewal, nor is she protected against "arbitrary and capri
• Colburn v. Upper Darby Twp.
  838 F.2d 663· 3d Cir.· 1988-01-26 ·cited 88×
  The dissenting judge argues that allegations of gross negligence or deliberate indifference are insufficient to sustain a due process § 1983 claim, which requires pleading intentional action, abuse of power, or actions tantamount to intent.
• White v. Rochford
  592 F.2d 381· 7th Cir.· 1979-02-13 ·cited 88×
  Police officers may not constitutionally abandon children in health-endangering situations after arresting their custodian, as such conduct violates the Due Process Clause.
• Zern v. State
  191 So. 3d 962· Fla. 1st DCA· 2016-05-12 ·cited 87×
  The appellate court reversed a criminal conviction because the trial court failed to make an independent finding of the defendant's competency to stand trial, despite ordering psychological evaluations and holding a hearing. This failure violated the defendant's due process right
• Duncan
  657 F.2d 691· 5th Cir.· 1981-09-28 ·cited 87×
  The court held that Georgia's special election statute requires a popular election for a vacancy on the Supreme Court and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause protects against state officials' actions that seriously undermine the fairness of the electoral process.
• Gonzales v. Cassidy
  474 F.2d 67· 5th Cir.· 1973-02-15 ·cited 87×
  The court held that a class representative's failure to appeal a judgment denying retroactive relief to the class renders their representation inadequate, thus precluding res judicata effect on absent class members.
• Wilson v. Taylor
  733 F.2d 1539· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-11 ·cited 86×
  The court held that dating is a constitutionally protected association under the First Amendment and that the award of $100,000 for procedural due process violations was grossly excessive.
• Miller v. United States
  388 F.2d 973· 9th Cir.· 1967-12-29 ·cited 86×
  The court held that a local Selective Service Board cannot deny a conscientious objector claim by evaluating its merits without formally reopening the classification, as this violates procedural due process and statutory rights to appeal.
• Caldwell v. Miller
  790 F.2d 589· 7th Cir.· 1986-05-08 ·cited 85×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the free exercise of religion claim due to insufficient evidence regarding security justifications for the ban on group religious services. However, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on th
• Stephens v. Geoghegan
  702 So. 2d 517· Fla. 2d DCA· 1997-10-17 ·cited 84×
  Police officers Stephens, Upman, and Worlds challenged a circuit court's denial of their motions for summary judgment based on immunity claims in a suit by retired officer Geoghegan, who was discharged after an officer-involved shooting but later reinstated through arbitration. T
• 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.
• Getty OIL Co. (Eastern Operations), Inc. v. Ruckelshaus
  467 F.2d 349· 3d Cir.· 1972-09-12 ·cited 84×
  Pre-enforcement judicial review of an EPA compliance order is foreclosed by Section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act when the challenge is to the underlying regulation's validity, necessity, or reasonableness, rather than a factual dispute about the violation.
• Tillman v. State
  592 So. 2d 767· Fla. 2d DCA· 1992-01-22 ·cited 83×
  Christopher Tillman appeals his probation revocation sentences for robbery and aggravated assault, challenging both the sentencing guidelines calculation and certain probation conditions. The court agrees that the guidelines were computed incorrectly and that several probation co
• Robins v. Harum
  773 F.2d 1004· 9th Cir.· 1985-10-03 ·cited 83×
  The court held that an excessive use of force claim by law enforcement officers during the post-arrest transport of an arrestee is actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a Fourth Amendment violation, and the Parratt analysis does not apply to such claims.
• Hardy W. Ryland and Alma Odessa Ryland v. Shapiro
  708 F.2d 967· 5th Cir.· 1983-07-05 ·cited 83×
  The court held that plaintiffs stated a claim under section 1983 for deprivation of their constitutional right of access to the courts and that prosecutors were not entitled to absolute immunity for actions outside their quasi-judicial role.
• Rogin v. Bensalem Twp. & Stephen J. Kelly
  616 F.2d 680· 3d Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 82×
  The court held that the developer's cross-claim failed to state a cause of action under federal law, affirming the district court's dismissal, but found the case was not moot.
• Augustine v. DOE
  740 F.2d 322· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 81×
  The availability of state tort remedies does not preclude a Section 1983 claim for violations of substantive constitutional rights, nor for procedural due process violations where predeprivation procedures were feasible.
• Wade v. Haynes
  663 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1981-11-09 ·cited 81×
  The court held that punitive damages in a § 1983 action require a finding of actual malice, not merely reckless or callous disregard for a prisoner's rights.
• Geneva Towers Tenants Org. v. Federated Mortg. Invs.
  504 F.2d 483· 9th Cir.· 1974-10-02 ·cited 81×
  The court held that tenants in federally financed § 221(d)(3) housing projects have a constitutionally protected property interest in low-cost housing, requiring procedural due process before rent increases.
• Progressive Express Ins. Co. v. McGRATH Community Chiropractic
  913 So. 2d 1281· Fla. 2d DCA· 2005-11-18 ·cited 80×
  Progressive Express Insurance seeks second-tier certiorari review of a circuit court decision that reversed dismissal of a small claims action filed by a medical provider seeking PIP benefits. The court holds that standing to sue is not a condition precedent that can be cured by
• Danti v. Lewis
  312 F.2d 345· D.C. Cir.· 1962-11-20 ·cited 80×
  The court held that it would not substitute its discretion for that of the Trustees regarding pension eligibility, as long as the Trustees acted rationally and in good faith.
• Herrington v. Cnty. OF Sonoma
  834 F.2d 1488· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-24 ·cited 79×
  The court should have dismissed the claims as not ripe for review because damages were not calculable.
• ST. Louis Univ. v. Blue Cross Hosp. Serv.
  537 F.2d 283· 8th Cir.· 1976-04-12 ·cited 79×
  The court held that while federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 is barred by § 405(h) for claims seeking reimbursement under Medicare, jurisdiction exists for procedural due process claims challenging the administrative process itself. The court also found that the equal pro
• Shelton v. City OF Coll. Station
  780 F.2d 475· 5th Cir.· 1986-01-06 ·cited 78×
• Smith v. Ferron C. Losee
  485 F.2d 334· 10th Cir.· 1973-08-22 ·cited 78×
  The dissenting judge argues that board members are liable for failing to investigate facts, even if they acted in good faith, and that damages awarded were excessive.
• Buxton v. City OF Plant City
  871 F.2d 1037· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-01 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the placement of stigmatizing information in a public employee's personnel file or internal affairs report, which are public records, constitutes sufficient publication to implicate liberty interests requiring procedural due process.
• Coniston Corp. v. Vill. OF Hoffman Ests.
  844 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1988-04-20 ·cited 77×
  The court held that a village board's rejection of a site plan, even without stated reasons, does not violate substantive or procedural due process if the decision is not irrational or invidious, and the action is legislative rather than adjudicative.
• Kinzli v. City OF Santa Cruz
  818 F.2d 1449· 9th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 77×
  The court held that the Kinzlis' claims were not ripe for adjudication because they had not obtained a final decision from the City regarding development and had not sought compensation through available state procedures.