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

• Rucker v. City OF Ocala & Crawford & Co.
  684 So. 2d 836· Fla. 1st DCA· 1996-12-05 ·cited 61×
  Injured worker Benjamin Rucker challenged the constitutionality of Florida Statutes section 440.13(5)(e), which restricts medical testimony in workers' compensation proceedings to medical advisors appointed by judges, independent medical examiners, or authorized treating provider
• Covington v. Dep't OF Health & Human Servs.
  750 F.2d 937· Fed. Cir.· 1984-12-18 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the petitioner's retirement was involuntary due to misleading agency information and a failure to inform him of his appeal rights, entitling him to a hearing.
• Clutchette v. Procunier
  497 F.2d 809· 9th Cir.· 1974-04-25 ·cited 61×
  The court held that the majority's interpretation of Preiser v. Rodriguez regarding exhaustion of state remedies was too strict, and that the inmates' claims regarding the duration of their confinement necessitated exhaustion.
• United States v. Erves
  880 F.2d 376· 11th Cir.· 1989-08-10 ·cited 60×
  The court affirmed the defendants' sentences, holding that the sentencing guidelines are constitutional and were properly applied in these cases.
• Raymon J. Melton v. City OF Okla. City
  879 F.2d 706· 10th Cir.· 1989-06-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that Melton's trial testimony was not a motivating factor for his discharge, and that his disclosure of a recorded conversation did not create a protected liberty interest. However, the court agreed that his disclosure of the tape was a matter of public concern and
• United States v. Vizcaino
  870 F.2d 52· 2d Cir.· 1989-03-06 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and its promulgated Guidelines do not unconstitutionally deny due process by restricting judicial discretion or vesting excessive authority in the prosecutorial branch.
• Dykes v. A.J. Hosemann, Jr.
  776 F.2d 942· 11th Cir.· 1985-11-18 ·cited 60×
  The en banc court holds that judicial immunity is complete, unqualified, and without exception, even for judges acting without jurisdiction or conspiring unlawfully.
• Loudermill v. Cleveland Bd. OF Educ.
  721 F.2d 550· 6th Cir.· 1983-11-17 ·cited 60×
  The judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding that the appellants received minimal due process and that Donnelly was precluded from proceeding due to prior state court dismissals.
• Behar v. Se. Banks Tr. Co.
  374 So. 2d 572· Fla. 3d DCA· 1979-08-07 ·cited 60×
  Sylvia Behar appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage to Alberto Behar and subsequent orders regarding property disposition, challenging the trial court's refusal to continue the divorce hearing when her counsel moved to withdraw and claiming the court lacked jurisdiction
• Marathon OIL Co. v. Env't Prot. Agency
  564 F.2d 1253· 9th Cir.· 1977-11-21 ·cited 60×
  The court held that the EPA's procedures, where the Regional Administrator reviewed his own prior decision on pollutant discharge permits, violated the petitioners' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.
• LA Batt v. Twomey
  513 F.2d 641· 7th Cir.· 1975-01-08 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while prolonged prison lock-downs may require due process protections, a nine-day lock-down in response to an emergency, absent bad faith, does not necessitate a prior hearing. However, claims of denial of medical treatment and certain equal protection violati
• Wasson v. Trowbridge
  382 F.2d 807· 2d Cir.· 1967-09-13 ·cited 60×
  The court held that while the government has broad discretion in military and merchant marine disciplinary matters, a cadet facing dismissal is entitled to a fair hearing where they are apprised of the charges and permitted a defense, and that allegations of bias or procedural un
• United States v. Blodgett
  709 F.2d 608· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-01 ·cited 59×·via Due Process (Notice And Opportunity To Be Heard)
  A district court may sanction an attorney for filing a frivolous appeal in bad faith, but must provide notice and a hearing, and sanctions cannot exceed reasonable expenses incurred in opposing the appeal.
• Town Court Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Beal
  586 F.2d 266· 3d Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 59×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction to consider the nursing home's due process claim regarding termination of its Medicare provider agreement, even without full exhaustion of administrative remedies, due to the colorable nature of the constitutional claim.
• Herrington v. Cnty. OF Sonoma
  857 F.2d 567· 9th Cir.· 1988-09-13 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the landowners' claims were ripe for adjudication because the county's actions constituted a final rejection of their development proposal and any further attempts to gain approval or a variance would have been futile.
• Bueno v. City OF Donna
  714 F.2d 484· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-12 ·cited 58×
  The court concurred in the result of the majority, affirming the jury's verdict for the plaintiffs, but disagreed on the interpretation of the jury charge and the reasoning for reversing the verdict for one plaintiff.
• Miranda v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.
  710 F.2d 516· 9th Cir.· 1983-07-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the attorneys received sufficient notice and opportunity to be heard, satisfying due process requirements for the imposition of fines for violating local rules.
• Citizens OF the State of Fla. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n & Fla. Power Corp.
  425 So. 2d 534· Fla.· 1982-12-16 ·cited 58×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the Public Service Commission's approval of a permanent rate increase for Florida Power Corporation, including interim rates based on projected test year data and the inclusion of construction work in progress (CWIP) in the rate base. The court re
• Bishop v. Tice
  622 F.2d 349· 8th Cir.· 1980-05-16 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated actionable damage claims for denial of procedural due process, contractual interference, and fraud and deceit, reversing the district court's dismissal.
• Bono v. Saxbe
  620 F.2d 609· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-14 ·cited 58×
  The court held that while the conditions in the Control Unit, as modified by the district court, did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment, certain aspects like strip searches and lighting require further due process review on remand.
• Norb J. Konczak and Linda Konczak v. Tyrrell
  603 F.2d 13· 7th Cir.· 1979-07-12 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the district court properly denied judgment notwithstanding the verdict on constitutional violations, but correctly granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict on punitive damages due to lack of evidence of willful or wanton misconduct. The attorney's fees aw
• Rev. P. P. Burt v. Abel
  585 F.2d 613· 4th Cir.· 1978-09-29 ·cited 58×
  The court held that due to intervening Supreme Court decisions, the case must be remanded for further proceedings regarding damages and potential claims against the school district, and for consideration of attorney's fees.
• Prebble v. Brodrick
  535 F.2d 605· 10th Cir.· 1976-05-10 ·cited 58×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims against the University were barred by sovereign immunity, the Trustees were properly granted a directed verdict, and the jury instructions and verdict form were not prejudicial, thus affirming the trial court's judgment.
• Thomas v. Warden Frank J. Pate
  493 F.2d 151· 7th Cir.· 1974-01-10 ·cited 58×
• Moreno v. Henckel
  431 F.2d 1299· 5th Cir.· 1970-09-23 ·cited 58×
  A federal court cannot abstain from hearing a civil rights case solely because a state remedy is available; the federal remedy under Section 1983 is supplementary and does not require exhaustion of state judicial or administrative remedies.
• United States v. Thomas
  884 F.2d 540· 10th Cir.· 1989-09-05 ·cited 57×
  The court held that the Sentencing Reform Act and the Sentencing Guidelines do not violate a defendant's due process rights by limiting judicial discretion or a defendant's participation in sentencing.
• Hatcher v. Bd. OF Pub. Educ. & Orphanage FOR Bibb Cnty.
  809 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1987-02-17 ·cited 57×
  A tenured teacher demoted to a position of lesser responsibility, prestige, and salary has a constitutionally protected property interest in continued comparable employment, entitling them to procedural due process.
• Thibodeaux v. Bordelon
  740 F.2d 329· 5th Cir.· 1984-08-16 ·cited 57×
  A pretrial detainee's claim of injury due to negligent supervision by jail officials does not state a constitutional violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 if adequate post-deprivation state tort remedies are available.
• Landrum v. Moats
  576 F.2d 1320· 8th Cir.· 1978-05-30 ·cited 57×
  The court held that while the officers' use of deadly force was excessive as a matter of law, their good faith defense presented a jury question, precluding judgment notwithstanding the verdict. However, the jury instructions failed to properly address the good faith defense rega
• ORT v. Warden J.D. White
  813 F.2d 318· 11th Cir.· 1987-03-27 ·cited 56×
  The denial of water to an inmate refusing to work was not cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, nor a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment, as it was an immediate coercive measure to restore order, not punishment.
• Mann v. The City OF Tucson
  782 F.2d 790· 9th Cir.· 1986-02-10 ·cited 56×
  The court concurred in the result, finding substantial uncertainty in § 1983 jurisprudence regarding the significance of available state remedies.
• Eligio Castro and Rafael Diaz Diaz v. United States
  775 F.2d 399· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-14 ·cited 56×
  The court held that the district court did not err in dismissing the appellants' claims, enjoining them from further litigation, and assessing costs, as they failed to exhaust administrative remedies, state valid claims, or demonstrate grounds for injunctive relief.
• Redding v. Fairman
  717 F.2d 1105· 7th Cir.· 1983-09-13 ·cited 56×
  The court held that disqualification of prison disciplinary committee members sued by inmates is not automatic and requires a case-by-case analysis of personal involvement. It also held that denial of witness requests must be supported by the administrative record.
• Adolph Kizas v. Webster
  707 F.2d 524· D.C. Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 56×
  The court held that federal employees do not possess vested property rights in a former 'special preference' for promotion, and that Title VII is the exclusive remedy for federal employment discrimination claims, requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies.
• Laje v. R. E. Thomason Gen. Hosp.
  665 F.2d 724· 5th Cir.· 1982-01-14 ·cited 56×
  The hospital district is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the award for mental anguish due to procedural due process violations is affirmed, but the award for lost salary is reversed.
• Pollard v. Cockrell
  578 F.2d 1002· 5th Cir.· 1978-08-23 ·cited 56×
  The court held that plaintiff patrons lacked standing, that res judicata did not preclude federal review of certain ordinance sections, and that the ordinance's challenged provisions were constitutional exercises of police power.
• Royal Typewriter Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  533 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1976-03-31 ·cited 56×
  The court held that Litton and its affiliates were a single employer for unfair labor practice liability and affirmed the Board's order, finding substantial evidence supported most of the Board's conclusions regarding unfair labor practices.
• Palmigiano v. Baxter
  487 F.2d 1280· 1st Cir.· 1973-11-16 ·cited 56×
  The court held that while a prisoner has a right to use immunity for statements made in disciplinary hearings to protect against self-incrimination in subsequent criminal prosecutions, they do not have a right to retained counsel in such hearings, nor must adverse witnesses alway
• Menechino v. Oswald
  430 F.2d 403· 2d Cir.· 1970-08-05 ·cited 56×
  The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a prisoner be allowed the assistance of retained counsel at his parole release hearing.
• Simer v. Rios
  661 F.2d 655· 7th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 55×
  The court held that the district court erred in vacating the consent decree, finding it had jurisdiction to approve a pre-certification settlement and that class certification was improperly denied.
• Alvord v. State
  396 So. 2d 184· Fla.· 1981-04-09 ·cited 55×
  Gary Eldon Alvord was convicted in 1974 of three first-degree murders and sentenced to death. On his third appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, he sought post-conviction relief, claiming ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel, among other constitutional violations.
• Tefel v. Reno
  180 F.3d 1286· 11th Cir.· 1999-07-14 ·cited 54×
  This class action challenged the application of the "stop-time" rule enacted by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) and clarified by the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act (NACARA), which rendered aliens ineligible for suspensi
• United Retail & Wholesale Emps. Teamsters Union Local NO. 115 Pension Plan & Robert E. Zimmer v. Yahn & Mc Donnell
  787 F.2d 128· 3d Cir.· 1986-03-31 ·cited 54×
  The dissenting judge argues that the presumption of correctness for plan trustees' determinations of withdrawal liability in arbitration does not violate due process.
• Voutour v. Vitale
  761 F.2d 812· 1st Cir.· 1985-03-29 ·cited 54×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the liability of Chief Forni and the Town of Saugus under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, precluding summary judgment.
• Brown v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs. of the United States
  747 F.2d 878· 3d Cir.· 1984-11-06 ·cited 54×
  A Social Security claimant who obtains a remand for further administrative proceedings is not yet a "prevailing party" for the purposes of the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) until entitlement to benefits is established.
• Roth v. The Bd. OF Regents OF State Colleges & Roger E. Guiles
  446 F.2d 806· 7th Cir.· 1971-07-01 ·cited 54×
  The court held that a probationary instructor whose contract is not renewed is entitled to a statement of reasons and a hearing as a matter of procedural due process.
• Eng'rs & Fabricators, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  376 F.2d 482· 5th Cir.· 1967-04-12 ·cited 54×
  The court held that while there was substantial evidence of threats and coercion violating § 8(a)(1), the Board could not enforce a finding of an unfair labor practice for merit raises as it was not alleged in the complaint or litigated. Furthermore, the court denied enforcement
• United States v. Vencelli
  215 F.2d 210· 2d Cir.· 1954-08-17 ·cited 54×
  A local draft board's failure to notify a registrant of its decision not to reopen his classification, after considering his request on the merits, constitutes a denial of procedural due process.
• Conahan v. Dep't OF Hwy. Safety & Motor Vehicles
  619 So. 2d 988· Fla. 5th DCA· 1993-04-30 ·cited 53×
  Woodrow Conahan challenges the suspension of his driver's license after he refused to submit to a breath test following a DUI arrest. The Florida appellate court affirms the suspension, holding that the validity of a refused breath test is irrelevant to the suspension decision an
• Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc. v. Nelson
  872 F.2d 1555· 11th Cir.· 1989-05-23 ·cited 53×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction requiring the INS to provide competent translators, allow witness testimony, and particularize information on the I-696 form for SAW applicants.