Procedural Due Process

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

• Veronie v. Garcia
  878 F.2d 347· 10th Cir.· 1989-07-03
  The court held that the Louisiana workers' compensation reimbursement statute (La.Rev.Stat.Ann. 23:1102(C)) does not violate the due process or equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Zavala v. United States
  876 F.2d 780· 9th Cir.· 1989-06-05
  The court held that the Federal Tort Claims Act statute of limitations cannot be tolled for a minor plaintiff whose parent, despite alleged abandonment, had a duty and knowledge to file a claim within the statutory period.
• Chambers v. State
  544 So. 2d 304· Fla. 1st DCA· 1989-05-26
  Trial court erred in summarily denying appellant's Rule 3.850 post-conviction relief motion as repetitive when prior motions were for different relief and lacked proper evidentiary hearing.
• Sheppard v. State OF La. Bd. OF Parole
  873 F.2d 761· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-27
  The court held that a prisoner's civil rights claims challenging parole supervision fees as an ex post facto violation should not be dismissed prematurely and may require a stay or dismissal without prejudice pending habeas corpus exhaustion.
• Brown v. Byer
  870 F.2d 975· 5th Cir.· 1989-04-24
  The court held that altering arrest warrants to arrest someone not named therein constitutes a Fourth Amendment violation, and that vicarious liability for sheriffs under Texas law requires ratification of deputies' acts, which was not shown. Qualified immunity does not protect o
• Schmidt v. Iowa State Bd. of Dental Exam'rs
  872 F.2d 243· 8th Cir.· 1989-04-10
  The court held that a dentist's due process rights were not violated by a state board's suspension, even if the specific statutory provisions were not perfectly cited, as long as adequate notice and judicial review were provided.
• Storek & Storek, Inc. v. Port OF Oakland
  869 F.2d 1322· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-13
  An "approval in principle" for a development project does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest, and conspiracy claims based on alleged contractual duties are tort claims subject to a statute of limitations.
• Ring v. State
  537 So. 2d 209· Fla. 2d DCA· 1989-01-27
  The court reversed the trial court's summary denial of Ring's motion for jail time credit, holding that the trial judge must conduct an evidentiary hearing or provide record evidence before denying such motions.
• City OF LOS Angeles & Cnty. of Los Angeles v. McLAUGHLIN
  865 F.2d 1084· 9th Cir.· 1989-01-13
  The court held that the Secretary of Labor was not required to publish changes in the Bureau of Labor Statistics' statistical methodology under the Job Training Partnership Act or the Administrative Procedure Act, and that the change did not violate due process.
• Laurel Reese v. Kennedy
  865 F.2d 186· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-12
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations did not state a claim for a substantive due process violation because the conduct did not shock the conscience, and South Dakota's post-deprivation remedies were adequate to satisfy procedural due process.
• Efren Paredes v. Ned Curtis
  864 F.2d 426· 6th Cir.· 1988-12-29
  A student suspended for ten days for possession of a drug look-alike substance is not denied procedural due process by not being allowed to cross-examine an anonymous student informant or by not being given the informant's written statement, as long as the student receives notice
• Armer v. The City OF Salem
  861 F.2d 514· 8th Cir.· 1988-11-16
  Police officers of a fourth-class city in Missouri are at-will employees under state statute, and thus do not possess a property interest in their jobs that implicates due process protections.
• Cremeans v. City OF Roseville
  861 F.2d 878· 6th Cir.· 1988-10-28
  The court held that the plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process, and the trial court erred in submitting the § 1983 claim to the jury.
• Lee André Killion by Sherrill Ackers v. Reva M. Burl
  860 F.2d 306· 8th Cir.· 1988-10-27
  A student does not possess a liberty or property interest in promotion to the next grade, and an equal protection claim requires a showing of irrational classification or disparate treatment.
• Gillard v. Norris
  857 F.2d 1095· 6th Cir.· 1988-09-23
  The court held that the plaintiff's three-day suspension and reprimands did not violate his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or the right to petition the government.
• In & for New Castle Cnty. Emerald P'rs
  Del. Ch.· 1988-08-15
  The Court of Chancery found that the merger was entirely fair to May's minority stockholders, both in terms of fair dealing and fair price. Consequently, the director defendants are not liable for monetary damages. Even if the merger were found to be unfair, the defendants would
• Collins v. State
  528 So. 2d 1305· Fla. 2d DCA· 1988-08-03
  The court held that costs and attorney's fees cannot be imposed without prior notice and opportunity to object at sentencing.
• Samad v. Jenkins
  845 F.2d 660· 6th Cir.· 1988-05-06
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a viable § 1983 claim for deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment rights, as he did not demonstrate a substantial, tangible harm or material change in employment status, nor did the defendant's letter constitute a chilling of Firs
• Hugo Ramirez, M.D. v. Suzanne AHN, M.D.
  843 F.2d 864· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-03
• Madry v. State
  526 So. 2d 918· Fla. 4th DCA· 1988-04-06
  Trial court's summary denial of post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel motion reversed because the allegations, if proven, would constitute ineffective assistance and required an evidentiary hearing.
• Zenco Dev. Corp. v. City OF Overland
  843 F.2d 1117· 8th Cir.· 1988-04-05
  The court held that Zenco did not possess a protectable property interest in the renewal of its municipal liquor license under Missouri law.
• Lowe v. Kan. City
  841 F.2d 857· 8th Cir.· 1988-03-14
  The court held that placing a formal letter of reprimand in an officer's personnel file, without an opportunity to refute it, does not deprive the officer of a constitutionally protected property interest if there is no loss in pay or rank.
• Johnson v. Cohen
  836 F.2d 798· 3d Cir.· 1987-12-31
  The court held that its jurisdiction was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 because the district court's decision found the implementing regulations, not the statute itself, to be unconstitutional. The court reversed the district court's injunction based on the Supreme Court's ruling
• Fraser v. United States
  834 F.2d 911· 11th Cir.· 1987-12-21
  The court held that an order compelling compliance with 18 U.S.C.A. § 3506(a) is a nonfinal order in a criminal proceeding and thus not immediately appealable. The appeal was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Salomon Benarroch v. Crawford
  516 So. 2d 28· Fla. 3d DCA· 1987-11-24
  Petitioner Benarroch sought habeas corpus relief from a contempt of court order confining him to jail for 48 hours. The court granted the petition, finding that the trial court improperly imposed an indirect criminal contempt sentence without following required procedural due pro
• Esther v. Reigh
  829 F.2d 1334· 4th Cir.· 1987-10-02
  A plaintiff may be considered a prevailing party entitled to attorney's fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 even without a formal judgment if their lawsuit causes the defendant to remedy the constitutional deficiencies.
• United States v. Salerno
  829 F.2d 345· 2d Cir.· 1987-09-23
  The court affirmed the pretrial detention orders, finding no basis to disturb them after the Supreme Court upheld the Bail Reform Act's constitutionality.
• Cuellar v. Tex. Emp. Comm'n & Larco Leasing, Inc.
  825 F.2d 930· 5th Cir.· 1987-08-31
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint, as the plaintiff may have alleged sufficient facts to ground a constitutional claim for deprivation of due process.
• Broward Cnty. v. Fla. Nat'l Props., Inc.
  510 So. 2d 1247· Fla. 4th DCA· 1987-08-19
  Broward County conditioned approval of a plat for a 100-lot subdivision on adding a notation to the plat face restricting development to that level, claiming authority under its land development code. The court held that the county lacked statutory authority to impose such a nota
• Fla. State Lodge v. City OF Hialeah
  815 F.2d 631· 11th Cir.· 1987-04-24
  The court held that the statutory impasse resolution procedure is constitutional and that the city's reduction of sick leave and vacation benefits did not violate due process or the contract clause.
• In re Runnells v. Runnells
  815 F.2d 969· 4th Cir.· 1987-04-03
  The court held that the appellant's contempt was civil, not criminal, and that he received adequate notice and procedural protections, affirming the contempt order.
• Noll v. Carlson
  809 F.2d 1446· 9th Cir.· 1987-02-13
  A district court must notify a pro se plaintiff of the deficiencies in their complaint and grant leave to amend, unless it is absolutely clear the deficiencies cannot be cured.
• Dalton Ray Goolsby v. The City OF Montgomery
  805 F.2d 1008· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-10
  The court held that a post-deprivation hearing can cure procedural irregularities when state law provides adequate post-deprivation remedies, and that the plaintiff received such an adequate hearing.
• Linda J. Darnell (Rose) v. Dep't of Transp.
  807 F.2d 943· Fed. Cir.· 1986-11-26
  The denial of a pretermination hearing, even if considered harmless error by the majority, violated petitioners' due process rights.
• Riverside Grp., Inc. v. Smith
  497 So. 2d 988· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-11-20
  Riverside Group appealed a circuit court decision that set aside a county rezoning resolution based on the Planning Board's failure to submit written findings of fact. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that written findings by the Planning Board were not an essential
• Gibson v. Merced Cnty. Dep't OF Human Res.
  799 F.2d 582· 9th Cir.· 1986-09-12
  The court held that foster parents do not possess a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the continued placement of a foster child, and the procedures afforded were adequate to satisfy due process. The court also held that the foster child did not have a constitutionall
• United States v. Saade
  800 F.2d 269· 1st Cir.· 1986-09-04
  The court's holding is not explicitly stated as the opinion is a concurrence. However, it implies agreement with a prior decision that likely reversed or remanded the case.
• Sims Varner & Assocs., Inc. v. Blanchard
  794 F.2d 1123· 6th Cir.· 1986-07-08
  The court held that it had interlocutory jurisdiction over certain portions of the district court's orders denying injunctive relief, but affirmed those denials due to the contractor's substantial completion of the work and the plaintiff's delay in seeking equitable relief.
• William "Billy" Jarrell, Jr. v. Chem. Dependency Unit OF Acadiana
  791 F.2d 373· 5th Cir.· 1986-06-09
  The court held that the actions of a private institution, even if heavily regulated and involving state-initiated commitment, do not constitute state action for constitutional purposes unless there is a nexus between state authority and the specific conduct complained of.
• Flint v. State
  502 So. 2d 1· Fla. 4th DCA· 1986-05-14
  The Fourth District reversed the summary denial of post-conviction relief and remanded because the trial court failed to conduct an evidentiary hearing or attach relevant record portions to address claims that trial counsel failed to move for judgment of acquittal and failed to d
• Deibler v. The City OF Rehoboth Beach
  790 F.2d 328· 3d Cir.· 1986-05-05
  The dissenting judge would affirm the district court's decision, finding a rational basis for the city's requirement that candidates be current in their property taxes.
• Brant v. United States Polo Assoc.
  631 F. Supp. 71· S.D. Fla.· 1986-02-24
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to meet the burden of proof for preliminary injunctive relief, as the suspension did not demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits under a rule of reason analysis.
• Cheek v. Gooch
  779 F.2d 1507· 11th Cir.· 1986-01-13
  A county commissioner's refusal to grant a beer and wine license, based on a policy of not issuing any such licenses, does not violate due process rights because state law vests such discretion and does not create a protected property interest in obtaining a license.
• G.J. Deasy Inv., Inc. v. Mattox
  778 F.2d 1091· 5th Cir.· 1985-12-18
  The court held that the statute does not violate due process, as the legislature's decision to grant power to private manufacturers is not subject to judicial review for wisdom.
• Leventhal v. United States Dep't OF Labor
  766 F.2d 1351· 9th Cir.· 1985-07-23
  The court held that the Administrative Law Judge's findings were supported by substantial evidence, affirming the decision that the City of Los Angeles did not unlawfully retaliate against Leventhal for reporting CETA violations and that he received adequate procedural due proces
• Dep't OF Transp. v. Durden
  471 So. 2d 1271· Fla.· 1985-06-20
  The court held that subsections 479.105(1) and (3), Florida Statutes (Supp.1984), are constitutional on their face and as applied because the appellees lacked a protectible property interest in unlawfully erected signs.
• Shults v. The State OF Tex.
  762 F.2d 449· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-10
  The court held that a prior judgment barred the plaintiffs' facial challenge to forfeiture provisions due to res judicata, and that the delays in forfeiture proceedings did not violate due process under the Barker v. Wingo balancing test.
• Wojciechowicz v. Dep't OF the Army
  763 F.2d 149· 3d Cir.· 1985-05-24
  The court held that the Army violated its own regulations by improperly advising the employee to pursue a grievance instead of an appeal, thereby denying him a mandatory hearing and prejudicing his case.
• Lopez v. United States Immigr. & Naturalization Serv.
  758 F.2d 1390· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-08
  The court held that INS officials acted within their federal authority when seizing a driver's license from an individual believed to be in violation of immigration laws, and that such seizure did not violate due process rights.
• In re The Suspension of Judith Ward Smith Mattox v. The Disciplinary Panel OF the United States Dist. Court for the Dist. OF Colo.
  758 F.2d 1362· 10th Cir.· 1985-04-01
  A federal district court must provide an applicant with notice and an opportunity to be heard before denying readmission to the bar, even if the court's investigative committee recommended admission.