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

• Grover William Sims v. FOX
  505 F.2d 857· 5th Cir.· 1974-12-30 ·cited 77×
  The dissenting judge argues that Lt. Sims possesses protected liberty and property interests in his military career, entitling him to due process before discharge for misconduct, especially given the permanent bar from future military service.
• M.W. v. Arlonia Davis
  756 So. 2d 90· Fla.· 2000-05-04 ·cited 76×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Baker Act procedures are not required before a dependency court orders placement of an adjudicated dependent child in a residential mental health facility, though due process requires a hearing with an opportunity for the child to be heard.
• United States v. Brady
  895 F.2d 538· 9th Cir.· 1990-01-30 ·cited 76×
  The Sentencing Guidelines do not violate defendants' Fifth Amendment due process rights, either facially or as applied, by limiting judicial discretion and infringing on the right to individualized sentences.
• 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.
• Vicory v. Walton
  721 F.2d 1062· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-30 ·cited 76×
  The court should reverse and enter judgment for defendants based on prosecutorial immunity and the inapplicability of Parratt v. Taylor.
• Williams v. Ward
  556 F.2d 1143· 2d Cir.· 1977-05-26 ·cited 76×
  The court held that a prisoner's claim for access to and rebuttal of information in his institutional files, which may affect parole, is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, not a habeas corpus petition, and thus does not require exhaustion of state remedies.
• Freeman v. The Gould Special Sch. Dist. OF Lincoln Cnty.
  405 F.2d 1153· 8th Cir.· 1969-01-15 ·cited 76×
  The court held that the nonrenewal of public school teachers' contracts based on conclusory and unsupported charges of incompetence may state a claim for deprivation of constitutional rights under the Civil Rights Act.
• Isiah Carl Green v. McKASKLE
  788 F.2d 1116· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-05 ·cited 75×
  The court held that remedial court orders alone cannot serve as the basis for a § 1983 damage claim, and that certain claims of the prisoner plaintiff were improperly dismissed and should be remanded.
• United States ex rel. Thomas Johnson v. Chairman OF NEW York State Bd. OF Parole & Comm'r of N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. Servs.
  500 F.2d 925· 2d Cir.· 1974-06-13 ·cited 75×
  The dissent argues that the prior ruling in Menechino v. Oswald, which denied due process rights in parole hearings, was not superseded by Morrissey v. Brewer and should still apply to deny a statement of reasons for parole denial.
• Ralph E. Nishiyama and wife v. Dickson Cnty.
  814 F.2d 277· 6th Cir.· 1987-03-18 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' allegations of gross negligence by sheriffs in entrusting a patrol car to a convicted felon, who then murdered the plaintiff's daughter, stated a claim for deprivation of life without due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Adams v. Pate
  445 F.2d 105· 7th Cir.· 1971-06-23 ·cited 74×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the inmate plaintiffs' complaints for failure to state a claim or as frivolous.
• Milks v. State
  894 So. 2d 924· Fla.· 2005-02-03 ·cited 73×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Florida Sexual Predators Act against procedural due process and separation of powers challenges. The Court held that because the Act's requirements turn solely on prior conviction rather than current dangerousness, no
• Faye Elizabeth Hall v. Tawney
  621 F.2d 607· 4th Cir.· 1980-05-09 ·cited 73×
  Corporal punishment in public schools may violate substantive due process rights if it is brutal, demeaning, and harmful, shocking the conscience of the court, and such claims are cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Claims against school officials directly involved in the punishme
• Skehan v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Bloomsburg State Coll.
  538 F.2d 53· 3d Cir.· 1976-06-21 ·cited 73×
  The court held that attorney's fees may be awarded as costs against an immune sovereign for bad faith litigation, but not as damages for pre-litigation obduracy, and that official immunity for non-judicial state officials is qualified under Wood v. Strickland, requiring a remand
• Hadley v. Dep't OF Admin.
  411 So. 2d 184· Fla.· 1982-03-04 ·cited 71×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the termination of a career service employee who failed to report for a mandatory job transfer, rejecting his claim that the lack of due process violated his constitutional rights. The Court resolved a conflict between two District Courts of Appea
• Johnson v. Am. Credit Co. OF Ga.
  581 F.2d 526· 5th Cir.· 1978-10-06 ·cited 71×
  The Georgia prejudgment attachment scheme is facially unconstitutional because it lacks the required judicial scrutiny for the issuance of attachment writs, violating the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.
• United States v. Frederick Schiavo. Appeal of Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc.
  504 F.2d 1· 3d Cir.· 1974-08-08 ·cited 71×
  The court held that the district court's oral order enjoining the press from publishing information about pending indictments was procedurally deficient and should have been vacated.
• Rollinson v. State
  743 So. 2d 585· Fla. 4th DCA· 1999-09-29 ·cited 70×
  Kevin Rollinson appeals his sentence under Florida's Prison Releasee Reoffender Act, challenging its facial constitutionality on multiple grounds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal upholds the Act, rejecting arguments that it violates ex post facto, single subject, separation o
• 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.
• Sheehan v. Army & AIR Force Exch. Serv.
  619 F.2d 1132· 5th Cir.· 1980-06-27 ·cited 70×
  The court held that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over Sheehan's wrongful discharge claim against AAFES, based on the Tucker Act for monetary relief and federal question jurisdiction combined with the Administrative Procedure Act for nonmonetary relief.
• Milks v. State
  848 So. 2d 1167· Fla. 2d DCA· 2003-05-02 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the Florida Sexual Predators Act does not violate constitutional principles of separation of powers or procedural due process.
• Parks v. Watson
  716 F.2d 646· 9th Cir.· 1983-09-22 ·cited 68×
  The court held that conditioning a street vacation on the dedication of unrelated geothermal wells without just compensation violates the Fifth Amendment's unconstitutional conditions doctrine and the Equal Protection Clause. However, the court reversed and remanded the procedura
• Hadley v. Cnty. OF Du Page
  715 F.2d 1238· 7th Cir.· 1983-08-30 ·cited 68×
  The court held that a public employee's claim of de facto tenure based on individual assurances or longevity is insufficient to establish a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, and that a charge of mismanagement, without more, does not violate a liberty intere
• Powderly v. Schweiker
  704 F.2d 1092· 9th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 68×
  The court held that the bank's debiting of the appellant's account was not an action attributable to the federal government, thus no due process violation occurred.
• Polcover v. Secretary OF the Treasury
  477 F.2d 1223· D.C. Cir.· 1973-04-04 ·cited 68×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the agency's removal of the appellant was supported by substantial evidence and that no procedural errors occurred.
• Fla. Dep't of Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles v. Hernandez
  74 So. 3d 1070· Fla.· 2011-06-09 ·cited 67×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles cannot suspend a driver's license for refusing a breath test unless the refusal was incident to a lawful arrest, and that hearing officers must be permitted to review the lawfulness of the arr
• Dugger v. Wiley Jerome Grant
  610 So. 2d 428· Fla.· 1992-12-10 ·cited 67×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that the Department of Corrections may rely on information from arrest reports and presentence investigation reports as the sole basis for determining inmate eligibility for provisional credits under Section 944.277, even when such information contr
• O'Bryant v. M.D. Finch
  637 F.3d 1207· 11th Cir.· 2011-04-06 ·cited 66×
  Thomas O'Bryant, a Florida prisoner, appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to seven prison officials on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims alleging violations of his due process rights in disciplinary proceedings and retaliation for filing grievances in violation of hi
• T.J. Cunningham v. Adams
  808 F.2d 815· 11th Cir.· 1987-01-26 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction because the appellant failed to establish a likelihood of prevailing on the merits or irreparable harm.
• Lowell Buller v. Buechler
  706 F.2d 844· 8th Cir.· 1983-05-05 ·cited 66×
  The court held that private individuals who utilize state garnishment procedures, even if later found unconstitutional, can be considered state actors for section 1983 purposes if they act jointly with state officials, and may assert a qualified immunity defense.
• Chapman v. Kleindienst
  507 F.2d 1246· 7th Cir.· 1974-12-16 ·cited 66×
  The court held that the trial judge erred in prematurely terminating the plaintiff's case presentation and that a prima facie case for a First Amendment violation was established, requiring a new trial.
• Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Ozark Hardwood Co.
  282 F.2d 1· 8th Cir.· 1960-08-02 ·cited 66×
  The court held that Hardwood Manufacturing Company was a successor to Ozark Hardwood Company and subject to the original enforcement decree, but remanded the determination of back pay allowances for further consideration.
• Gregori v. United States
  243 F.2d 48· 5th Cir.· 1957-04-05 ·cited 66×
  A motion to vacate sentence under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 is available to collaterally attack a conviction based on insanity at the time of trial, even if the issue was not raised at trial, provided the facts supporting the claim only came to light after sentencing.
• Pro-Art Dental LAB, Inc. v. V-Strategic Grp., LLC
  986 So. 2d 1244· Fla.· 2008-07-10 ·cited 65×
  The Florida Supreme Court resolved a certified conflict between district courts regarding whether Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) applies during summary eviction proceedings under chapter 51. The Court held that Rule 1.500(c) applies to chapter 51 proceedings, allowing d
• Metro. Dade Cnty. v. Blumenthal
  675 So. 2d 598· Fla. 3d DCA· 1995-06-21 ·cited 65×
  Metropolitan Dade County petitions for certiorari to review a circuit court's decision that voided the County Commission's denial of a rezoning application for an apartment complex. The district court affirmed, holding that the Commission's decision was not supported by competent
• United States v. Melendez-Carrion
  790 F.2d 984· 2d Cir.· 1986-05-02 ·cited 65×
  Pretrial detention for dangerousness, when excessively lengthy, constitutes punishment and violates due process. However, detention solely to prevent flight is permissible.
• Rodgers v. Lincoln Towing Serv., Inc.
  771 F.2d 194· 7th Cir.· 1985-08-15 ·cited 65×
  The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims and the assessment of Rule 11 sanctions, finding the plaintiff's allegations failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and that the attorneys' conduct warranted sanctions.
• Bettie Jo Cherry v. Heckler
  760 F.2d 1186· 11th Cir.· 1985-05-20 ·cited 65×
  The court held that the Secretary's decision not to reopen the prior application was not a due process violation, but that the case should be remanded for consideration of new psychological evidence.
• McGHEE v. Draper
  639 F.2d 639· 10th Cir.· 1981-01-16 ·cited 64×
  The court held that intervening Supreme Court precedent (Owen v. City of Independence) allows for compensatory damages and backpay against local government officials in their official capacities, even if they acted in good faith, for procedural due process violations. Reinstateme
• Bertot v. Sch. Dist. NO. 1
  522 F.2d 1171· 10th Cir.· 1975-07-16 ·cited 64×
  The court held that the teachers, as initial contract teachers without a demonstrated property interest in continued employment, were not entitled to procedural due process before non-renewal of their contracts. The court also found sufficient evidence supported the jury's findin
• Soni v. Bd. OF Trs. OF the Univ. OF Tenn.
  513 F.2d 347· 6th Cir.· 1975-03-12 ·cited 64×
  A university professor can have a constitutionally protected property interest in continued employment based on a reasonable expectation, even without formal tenure, and this interest cannot be terminated without procedural due process. The Eleventh Amendment does not bar a money
• Lykes Bros. S.S. Co., Inc. v. The United States
  459 F.2d 1393· Ct. Cl.· 1972-05-12 ·cited 64×
  The Court of Claims held that the Renegotiation Act and subsequent legislation leave the allocation of the burden of proof to judicial resolution, and that the Government bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in excessive profits redetermination cases.
• Wood v. Ostrander
  879 F.2d 583· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-27 ·cited 63×
  The dissenting judge argues that the majority opinion incorrectly applied Supreme Court precedent, particularly DeShaney v. Winnebago County, and that the officer is entitled to qualified immunity.
• Burch v. Apalachee Cmty. Mental Health Servs., Inc.
  840 F.2d 797· 11th Cir.· 1988-03-18 ·cited 63×
  The concurring judge agrees with the dissent's reasoning, implying disagreement with the majority's disposition.
• 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.
• Duke v. N. Tex. State Univ.
  469 F.2d 829· 5th Cir.· 1972-11-10 ·cited 63×
  The dissenting opinion argues that the President's Cabinet lacked the "apparent impartiality" required for an administrative hearing tribunal because it was too closely connected to the controversy. The dissent asserts that the majority opinion incorrectly assumes impartiality an
• Davidson v. O'Lone
  752 F.2d 817· 3d Cir.· 1984-12-27 ·cited 62×
  The New Jersey Tort Claims Act, which grants broad immunity to state agents, cannot shield them from liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violating the Fourteenth Amendment right to personal security. Involuntarily committed individuals retain a federally protected liberty intere
• The Miami Herald Publ'g Co. v. City OF Hallandale
  734 F.2d 666· 11th Cir.· 1984-06-18 ·cited 62×
  The Tax Injunction Act bars federal jurisdiction over claims challenging the revenue-raising provisions of a municipal ordinance, but not over claims challenging purely regulatory provisions that are severable from the tax provisions.
• Rennie v. Klein
  653 F.2d 836· 3d Cir.· 1981-07-09 ·cited 62×
  The court held that the 'substantial departure from accepted professional judgment' standard governs a patient's constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication.
• Brown v. Bathke
  588 F.2d 634· 8th Cir.· 1978-12-13 ·cited 62×
  The court held that attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 should be awarded for all time reasonably expended on a matter, not just on the specific issue on which the plaintiff ultimately prevailed. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in award