Procedural Due Process

3,605 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count

• Groves-Watkins Constructors v. State
  511 So. 2d 323· Fla. 1st DCA· 1987-06-11 ·cited 8×
  A highway construction contractor challenged the Florida Department of Transportation's rejection of its low bid on a complex highway interchange project and demand for rebidding. The court held that the DOT violated administrative procedure by rejecting the hearing officer's fac
• Porter T. Stow v. E.W. Cochran
  819 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1987-06-01 ·cited 8×
  As a matter of law, the plaintiff had no constitutionally protected property right to continued employment as a patrolman, and thus could be discharged without procedural due process.
• Galloway v. State OF La. & Dep't of Corr.
  817 F.2d 1154· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a remedial court order alone does not create rights secured by law for § 1983 liability, and that the plaintiff failed to present evidence of a protected class for a § 1985(3) claim.
• Jaxie LEE v. Sheriff Bill Hutson & Cobb Cnty.
  810 F.2d 1030· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that alleged procedural errors in an administrative hearing, where state remedies exist, do not constitute a federal due process violation. However, a conclusory equal protection claim may survive dismissal.
• Scroggins v. State OF Kan.
  802 F.2d 1289· 10th Cir.· 1986-10-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court erred in applying res judicata to bar the federal discrimination suit because the state administrative and judicial review proceedings did not provide a full and fair opportunity to litigate the merits of the discrimination claim.
• Harris v. Blake
  798 F.2d 419· 10th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff received adequate procedural and substantive due process, and that the decisions affecting his enrollment were academic rather than disciplinary.
• Deretich v. Off. OF Admin. Hearings
  798 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, nor in dismissing the First Amendment and Section 1985 claims, and that res judicata properly barred certain due process claims.
• Dace v. Mickelson
  797 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1986-07-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that South Dakota administrative regulations governing parole hearings do not create a protectable liberty interest in parole because they do not place substantive limitations on official discretion.
• Boston Env't Sanitation Inspectors Ass'n & John Curry v. City OF Boston
  794 F.2d 12· 1st Cir.· 1986-06-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that appellants' federal claims were properly dismissed because they failed to avail themselves of adequate state remedies and because mere violations of state statutes or contracts do not constitute a deprivation of due process under § 1983.
• Barnett Bank OF Sw. Fla., N.A. v. Anderson
  488 So. 2d 923· Fla. 2d DCA· 1986-05-28 ·cited 8×
  Barnett Bank's default judgment was reversed because the trial court entered the default on the same day the bank served its amended answer, violating Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.500(c) which permits a party to plead or defend before a default is entered.
• Horizon Concepts, Inc. v. City OF Balch Springs
  789 F.2d 1165· 5th Cir.· 1986-05-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the city's zoning ordinance regulating modular home construction is constitutional on its face and as applied to the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff's failure to appear before the zoning commission justified the denial of permits.
• Som P. Agarwal v. Regents OF the Univ. OF Minn.
  788 F.2d 504· 8th Cir.· 1986-04-10 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no error in the granting of summary judgment on due process claims, the dismissal of Title VII claims for failure to establish a prima facie case, and the rejection of civil rights claims due to lack of proof of disparate
• 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.
• Berlanti v. Bodman
  780 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1985-12-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the debarment of an individual from bidding on public contracts, when conducted by supervisory officials acting under color of state law or custom, is not a 'random and unauthorized act' for which post-deprivation remedies are sufficient under Parratt v. Taylo
• Kester v. Horner
  778 F.2d 1565· Fed. Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 8×
• Chukwuemeka v. Ikpeazu
  775 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a student's academic dismissal was not a violation of due process, as there was a rational basis for the university's decision and the procedures afforded were adequate.
• Naegele Outdoor Advertising Co. OF Louisville v. Moulton
  773 F.2d 692· 6th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Kentucky campaign finance statutes do not grant exclusive investigative jurisdiction to the Registry of Election Finance, nor do they create a protected liberty interest that requires due process before law enforcement can investigate alleged violations.
• Okeson v. Tolley Sch. Dist. NO. 25
  760 F.2d 864· 8th Cir.· 1985-04-19 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the school board's failure to provide adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard violated Okeson's procedural due process rights, entitling him to nominal damages, even though his termination was otherwise justified.
• State v. Borges
  467 So. 2d 375· Fla. 2d DCA· 1985-03-20 ·cited 8×
  The State of Florida appealed the trial court's dismissal of charges against George Borges, Ralph Borges, and Mary Ann Yglesia on the ground that the State's 137-day delay in filing charges created an unconstitutional 'Hobson's choice' between waiving speedy trial rights and adeq
• Rodgers v. Norfolk Sch. Bd.
  755 F.2d 59· 4th Cir.· 1985-02-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the procedures afforded to the employee, including notice, opportunity to be heard, and a meaningful review, satisfied due process requirements, even without direct confrontation of child accusers or advance notice of the right to counsel.
• Daniels v. Morris
  746 F.2d 271· 5th Cir.· 1984-11-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that students who moved out of a school district were not entitled to a due process hearing before being required to withdraw, as they had no protected property interest in attending the former district's school tuition-free.
• Alton Land Tr. & Cedar Mountain Dev. Corp. v. Town OF Alton
  745 F.2d 730· 1st Cir.· 1984-10-12 ·cited 8×
  The court held that plaintiffs failed to state a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged due process and taking clause violations arising from a planning board's unreasonable denial of subdivision applications, as state law provided an adequate remedy and the board a
• Kraemer v. Heckler
  737 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 8×
  A Utilization Review Committee's determination of medical necessity for Medicare benefits is not 'state action' because it is based on private professional medical judgment, not government dictate.
• Schiffahrtsgesellschaft Leonhardt & Co. v. A. Bottacchi S.A. DE Navegacion
  732 F.2d 1543· 11th Cir.· 1984-05-29 ·cited 8×
  Supplemental Rule for Admiralty B(1) does not violate procedural due process by failing to require the same procedural safeguards as common law attachment actions, due to the unique nature of maritime law and property.
• Lucero v. Ogden
  718 F.2d 355· 10th Cir.· 1983-10-04 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Colorado Rule of Civil Procedure 217, which precludes review of bar examination results but allows unlimited retakes, satisfies the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Frazier v. Lowndes Cnty.
  710 F.2d 1097· 5th Cir.· 1983-08-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that threats to cancel leases and initiate legal disputes over their validity, based on an Attorney General's opinion, do not constitute a taking or a violation of due process under federal constitutional law, as the leases remain valid until a court rules otherwis
• Rucker v. Secretary OF THE Army
  702 F.2d 966· 11th Cir.· 1983-04-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a servicemember's claims of procedural violations in military elimination proceedings are reviewable, and that the Army violated its regulations by failing to provide consulting counsel and an opportunity to submit statements, but not a medical evaluation.
• Sucesion Suarez through its members v. Gelabert
  701 F.2d 231· 1st Cir.· 1983-03-09 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a state agency exceeding its authority in reviewing another agency's permit does not constitute a constitutional violation if procedural due process was afforded.
• Martin v. Strasburg
  689 F.2d 365· 2d Cir.· 1982-09-20 ·cited 8×
  New York's preventive detention law for accused juvenile delinquents is unconstitutional because it permits liberty to be denied prior to adjudication of guilt based on unfettered discretion and uncertain predictions of future behavior.
• Dash, Inc. v. The Alcoholic Bev. Control Appeals Bd.
  683 F.2d 1229· 9th Cir.· 1982-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that California's procedure for revoking liquor licenses, including administrative hearings and appellate review, provided sufficient procedural due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, even with restrictions on administrative agencies declaring statutes unconst
• Scherer v. Davis
  543 F. Supp. 4· N.D. Fla.· 1982-06-07 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims for unrecovered wages and injunctive relief related to his initial termination were waived by his settlement, but claims for additional damages and declaratory relief were not waived. The court also found that the procedures afforded to
• Atencio v. Bd. OF Educ. OF Penasco Indep. Sch. Dist. NO. 4
  658 F.2d 774· 10th Cir.· 1981-09-08 ·cited 8×
  A breach of state procedural requirements, even if creating a property interest, does not automatically constitute a federal constitutional violation under the Due Process Clause if adequate state remedies exist.
• In re Baxter
  656 F.2d 679· C.C.P.A.· 1981-07-30 ·cited 8×
  The court held that claims 1 and 6 were obvious over prior art, but claims 7 and 8 were improperly rejected based on interference estoppel due to a violation of procedural due process.
• Portela v. Pierce
  650 F.2d 210· 9th Cir.· 1981-07-06 ·cited 8×
  The court held that HUD's disposition of the low-income housing project was not an abuse of discretion, and the tenants were not denied due process or NEPA requirements.
• Brousseau v. The United States
  640 F.2d 1235· Ct. Cl.· 1981-01-14 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Federal Employee Appeals Authority's (FEAA) decision sustaining the charge of conflict of interest or position against the plaintiff was not violative of the First Amendment, not in contravention of Executive Order No. 11491, not arbitrary or capricious, a
• Alumbaugh Coal Corp. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  635 F.2d 1380· 8th Cir.· 1980-12-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while the company unlawfully discharged an employee for union activity, the employee's subsequent post-discharge dishonesty warrants modification of the reinstatement and backpay remedy. The court also affirmed the Board's bargaining order.
• Shaw v. The Hosp. Auth. OF Cobb Cnty.
  614 F.2d 946· 5th Cir.· 1980-03-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the hospital authority's by-laws were rationally based and reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose, and that the plaintiff received adequate procedural due process.
• Norberto T. Agustin v. Quern
  611 F.2d 206· 7th Cir.· 1979-12-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's arguments regarding genuine issues of material fact and the unconstitutionality of the amended statute were without merit, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment.
• Greene v. City OF Memphis
  610 F.2d 395· 6th Cir.· 1979-11-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a municipality's exercise of police powers to close a street, absent racial motivation, does not violate 42 U.S.C. § 1982 or the Fourteenth Amendment, even if it has a disproportionate racial impact.
• Webster v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist.
  367 So. 2d 734· Fla. 4th DCA· 1979-02-21 ·cited 8×
  The Fourth District reversed the termination of a Water Management District employee, holding that the Administrative Procedure Act's requirements apply to employment dismissals because they affect private interests despite the internal management memoranda exemption.
• Bowling v. Charley Scott
  587 F.2d 229· 5th Cir.· 1979-01-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the university's termination of the tenured professor complied with both procedural and substantive due process guarantees.
• Demar v. Louie L. Wainwright
  354 So. 2d 366· Fla.· 1977-11-30 ·cited 8×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that when a parole grant has been notified to an inmate, rescission of that unexecuted parole without prior notice and an adjudicatory hearing violates constitutional due process protections. The Court applied minimal procedural safeguards from Morr
• Burton R. Galaway v. Lawson
  565 F.2d 542· 8th Cir.· 1977-11-23 ·cited 8×
  The court affirmed the district court's denial of relief, finding that the plaintiff's constitutional rights were not violated by his dismissal.
• Polizzi v. Sigler
  564 F.2d 792· 8th Cir.· 1977-10-27 ·cited 8×
  The court held that classifying a prisoner as a 'special offender' infringes upon a liberty interest requiring due process protections, and that the Bureau of Prisons' updated policy provides adequate procedural safeguards.
• Inter-Regional Fin. Grp., Inc. v. Cyrus Hashemi
  562 F.2d 152· 2d Cir.· 1977-09-01 ·cited 8×
  The court held that an order requiring a defendant to bring securities into the state for attachment, in addition to surrendering them, is an appealable injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
• William P. West, M.D. v. Chafee
  560 F.2d 942· 8th Cir.· 1977-08-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Navy's denial of the exemption was within its discretion and not arbitrary, irrational, or a due process violation, as the military's need for physicians is a matter for military determination.
• Wehner v. Levi
  562 F.2d 1276· D.C. Cir.· 1977-08-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the plaintiff's dismissal did not violate due process because he admitted to violating regulations and there was no factual dispute requiring a hearing.
• Miller v. Dean
  552 F.2d 266· 8th Cir.· 1977-04-06 ·cited 8×
  The Board of Education was justified in terminating the superintendent's contract, and the district court correctly denied relief.
• Finley v. Staton
  542 F.2d 250· 5th Cir.· 1976-11-10 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a pro se prisoner's complaint alleging arbitrary denial of work release program regulations stated a claim for relief and should not have been dismissed without an evidentiary hearing.
• Camenisch v. United States
  553 F.2d 1271· D.C. Cir.· 1976-10-07 ·cited 8×