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

• Stain v. United States
  235 F.2d 339· 9th Cir.· 1956-06-15 ·cited 36×
• Efron v. Madeleine Candelario
  110 F.4th 1229· 11th Cir.· 2024-08-02 ·cited 35×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal district courts from reviewing state court judgments, and claims that are inextricably intertwined with such judgments are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
• Hoehne v. Cnty. OF SAN Benito
  870 F.2d 529· 9th Cir.· 1989-03-15 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the landowners' federal claims were ripe because the county's actions, including legislative rezoning and denial of subdivision applications, demonstrated a final decision and futility in pursuing further administrative remedies.
• Rittenhouse v. DeKALB Cnty.
  764 F.2d 1451· 11th Cir.· 1985-07-09 ·cited 35×
  A state law remedy is adequate under Parratt even if principal defendants are immune from suit, and therefore a § 1983 claim based on negligence is not cognizable if pre-deprivation process was not feasible.
• Dykes v. A.J. Hosemann, Jr.
  743 F.2d 1488· 11th Cir.· 1984-10-11 ·cited 35×
• In re Japanese Elec. Prods. Antitrust Litig. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. & Nat'l Union Elec. Corp.
  631 F.2d 1069· 3d Cir.· 1980-07-07 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judge would hold that no case, properly separated into claims cognizable at common law, can be too complex for a jury trial without violating due process.
• Jones v. Diamond
  594 F.2d 997· 5th Cir.· 1979-04-26 ·cited 35×
  The court held that while some injunctive relief was warranted, the plaintiffs were entitled to further relief, including potential damages for constitutional violations, and that the case should be remanded for further consideration of class certification and damages.
• Lombardo v. Meachum
  548 F.2d 13· 1st Cir.· 1977-01-20 ·cited 35×
  The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, holding that the prisoner had no federal due process claim regarding his transfer and that the state law claim regarding prison regulations was properly handled by the lower court.
• Ingraham v. Wright
  525 F.2d 909· 5th Cir.· 1976-01-08 ·cited 35×
  The dissenting judges maintain that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment applies to corporal punishment administered to public school children under color of state law. They argue that the availability of state remedies does not preclude federal
• BAY Nat'l Bank & Tr. Co. v. Dickinson
  229 So. 2d 302· Fla. 1st DCA· 1969-12-18 ·cited 35×
  Bay National Bank challenged the Banking Commissioner's approval of a competitor bank's charter application without a public hearing, arguing that statutory and constitutional due process required such a hearing. The court affirmed dismissal of the complaint, holding that the Ban
• DELTA Drilling Co. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.
  406 F.2d 109· 5th Cir.· 1969-01-13 ·cited 35×
  The court held that the Board should have set aside the election because a Board Agent's conduct in visiting a union representative's motel room with the ballot box created an appearance of impropriety, violating established Board policy.
• La Gorce Country Club v. Cerami
  74 So. 2d 95· Fla.· 1954-07-27 ·cited 35×
  La Gorce Country Club expelled a founder member without notice or hearing. The Florida Supreme Court held that under F.S. § 617.10(2), social clubs must provide members with notice and an opportunity to be heard before expelling them, establishing this right as a matter of statut
• R.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families
  872 So. 2d 412· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-05-05 ·cited 34×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed in part a trial court's termination of parental rights, holding that the court erred by terminating parental rights on a statutory ground (39.806(1)(d)1.) that was not pleaded in the termination petition, thereby denying the mo
• Kirkland v. Nat'l Mortg. Network, Inc.
  884 F.2d 1367· 11th Cir.· 1989-09-29 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in revoking an attorney's pro hac vice admission without providing notice or an opportunity to be heard.
• Polenz v. Parrott
  883 F.2d 551· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-22 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while the denial of a tavern license did not implicate a protected property interest, the denial of an occupancy permit did, and the case must be remanded to determine if state remedies were inadequate before addressing qualified immunity.
• Vinson v. Campbell Cnty. Fiscal Court
  820 F.2d 194· 6th Cir.· 1987-06-04 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the magistrate erred in dismissing the substantive due process claim regarding child custody, and that the claim regarding false imprisonment should be analyzed under Parratt v. Taylor, but reversed the summary judgment on the custody claim.
• Gaffney v. State
  497 So. 2d 1292· Fla. 5th DCA· 1986-11-13 ·cited 34×
  Court costs imposed on an indigent defendant under Fla. Stat. § 27.3455 must be vacated where the defendant was neither given notice and opportunity to object to the costs nor afforded a judicial determination of ability to pay or alternative community service in lieu of costs.
• Wilson v. The City OF N. Little Rock
  801 F.2d 316· 8th Cir.· 1986-09-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the § 1983 claim against individual officers based on Parratt v. Taylor, as intentional abuse of power implicates substantive due process. However, the court affirmed the directed verdict for the City, finding no unconsti
• Holloway v. Judge Dee Brown Walker
  784 F.2d 1287· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-19 ·cited 34×
  The court held that alleged conspiracy to deprive plaintiffs of property through judicial proceedings does not violate due process because adequate post-deprivation remedies (appeal) exist, and the right to a fair trial is procedural, not substantive.
• Fast v. The Sch. Dist. OF City OF Ladue
  728 F.2d 1030· 8th Cir.· 1984-02-23 ·cited 34×
  A plaintiff is a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 if they succeed on any significant issue that achieves some of the benefit sought, even if not all claims are won.
• Palmer v. Hudson
  697 F.2d 1220· 4th Cir.· 1983-01-06 ·cited 34×
  The court held that intentional destruction of prisoner property is not a due process violation if an adequate state remedy exists, but a prisoner's claim of an unreasonable search motivated by harassment requires further factual determination.
• Owen v. Lash
  682 F.2d 648· 7th Cir.· 1982-06-28 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the District Court erred in characterizing the violation as procedural due process and in awarding only nominal damages, and that the issue of qualified immunity for the individual defendant was not properly addressed.
• Jinks Adkins, Jr. v. Bordenkircher
  674 F.2d 279· 4th Cir.· 1982-03-24 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the alibi instruction unconstitutionally shifted the burden of persuasion, but the double jeopardy claim was barred because the defendant's own motion necessitated the mistrial, and the failure to transcribe a hearing did not violate due process.
• Gulf Trading & Transp. Co. v. The Vessel Hoegh Shield
  658 F.2d 363· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-07 ·cited 34×
  The court held that U.S. maritime law applies to the case, a maritime lien existed for the bunker fuel, and the vessel owner's procedural due process claims were without merit.
• Gulf OIL Realty Co. v. Windhover Ass'n, Inc.
  403 So. 2d 476· Fla. 5th DCA· 1981-08-12 ·cited 34×
  The court held that denying a motion to require notice to condominium unit owners in a class action is not a departure from the essential requirements of law, and thus not grounds for certiorari.
• Downing v. Williams
  624 F.2d 612· 5th Cir.· 1980-08-21 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge argues the majority erred by disregarding the jury's findings of fact, which were supported by substantial evidence, and by independently re-examining the record on issues of procedural due process and First Amendment rights.
• Devine v. Cleland
  616 F.2d 1080· 9th Cir.· 1980-02-21 ·cited 34×
  The court held that 38 U.S.C. § 211(a) does not preclude judicial review of a constitutional challenge to the VA's benefit termination procedures, and the district court's mandated procedural safeguards were proper.
• In re the Grand Jury. In re Veronica Vigil
  524 F.2d 209· 10th Cir.· 1975-10-02 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the witness's claims of unlawful electronic surveillance and marital privilege were insufficient to constitute 'just cause' for refusing to testify, and that the grant of use immunity adequately protected her Fifth Amendment rights.
• Plano v. Baker
  504 F.2d 595· 2d Cir.· 1974-10-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that the state administrative remedy was inadequate because it lacked procedures for resolving factual disputes, did not address constitutional issues within judicial expertise, and could not grant the requested damages.
• McNEILL v. Butz
  480 F.2d 314· 4th Cir.· 1973-06-11 ·cited 34×
  The court held that untenured federal employees dismissed for cause, whose dismissals impugn their honesty and integrity, have a Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process, including the opportunity to confront and cross-examine their accusers, unless the government shows go
• United States v. Beaver
  309 F.2d 273· 4th Cir.· 1962-10-03 ·cited 34×
  The dissenting judge believes the registrant is clearly exempt by statute and would reverse the judgment.
• Babb v. Lincoln Auto Fin. Co.
  133 So. 2d 566· Fla. 3d DCA· 1961-10-09 ·cited 34×
  This case addresses whether a trial court properly granted summary judgment against plaintiffs in a negligence action arising from an automobile accident. The court held that the trial court violated procedural due process by granting summary judgment on the day after plaintiffs
• Farneth v. State
  945 So. 2d 614· Fla. 2d DCA· 2006-12-22 ·cited 33×
  In this second-tier certiorari proceeding, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed the circuit court's reversal of a county court's discovery sanction order, holding that the circuit court violated procedural due process by making its own factual findings instead of remandi
• Schiavo v. Schiavo
  403 F.3d 1289· 11th Cir.· 2005-03-25 ·cited 33×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of a temporary restraining order in the Schiavo case, applying the law-of-the-case doctrine to prior holdings and addressing new claims added in amended complaints. The court rejected claims under the Americans with Disabi
• Sheley v. Dugger
  833 F.2d 1420· 11th Cir.· 1987-11-20 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the record was insufficient to address the appellant's claims regarding his prolonged confinement in close management, necessitating an evidentiary hearing.
• John F. "Jack" Walsh v. Ford Motor Co.
  807 F.2d 1000· D.C. Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the district court erred by applying Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure less stringently in Magnuson-Moss Act cases and by relieving plaintiffs of the individual notice requirement.
• Fid. Fin. Corp. v. Fed. Home Loan Bank OF SAN Francisco
  792 F.2d 1432· 9th Cir.· 1986-06-27 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Federal Home Loan Bank's denial of regular credit advances did not violate Fidelity's due process rights because Fidelity lacked a protectible property interest, and that Fidelity could not assert a federal common law claim for breach of fiduciary duty.
• Kidd v. O'Neil
  774 F.2d 1252· 4th Cir.· 1985-09-23 ·cited 33×
  The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments provide protection against excessive force by state police during arrests, and the district court erred in requiring a specific intent to infringe a constitutional right for such claims.
• United States v. Hoffman
  733 F.2d 596· 9th Cir.· 1984-02-14 ·cited 33×
  The court held that disbarment in one state does not automatically render counsel ineffective in another, and the Cooper standard for harmless error is appropriate for evaluating such claims.
• Jimenez v. Almodovar
  650 F.2d 363· 1st Cir.· 1981-06-09 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the university's termination of tenured professors due to a bona fide program change, even without following the specific procedures for removal for cause, did not violate due process rights, as the statute governing removal for cause did not apply to position
• Unique Caterers, Inc. v. Rudy's Farm Co.
  338 So. 2d 1067· Fla.· 1976-09-23 ·cited 33×
  The Florida Supreme Court held that Chapter 76 of the Florida Statutes, governing prejudgment attachment procedures, is unconstitutional as applied because it fails to provide adequate procedural due process protections. While the Court affirmed the judgment for the creditor in t
• Shaw v. The Hosp. Auth. OF Cobb Cnty. & its individual members
  507 F.2d 625· 5th Cir.· 1975-01-29 ·cited 33×
  The court concurs that podiatry and medicine are distinct practices, but emphasizes the need for a rational basis to deny podiatrists hospital access.
• Miller v. Sch. Dist. No. 167
  495 F.2d 658· 7th Cir.· 1974-04-05 ·cited 33×
  The denial of public employment based solely on an employer's perception of an applicant's inappropriate appearance does not, in itself, constitute a deprivation forbidden by the Due Process Clause.
• Dick Lee Evans v. United States
  252 F.2d 509· 9th Cir.· 1958-02-24 ·cited 33×
  A registrant's failure to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing a Selective Service classification, even if claiming due process violations or arbitrary action, bars collateral attack on that classification during criminal prosecution for refusal to be inducted.
• Marcello v. Ahrens
  212 F.2d 830· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 33×
  The court held that the Administrative Procedure Act does not apply to deportation proceedings when a subsequent, exclusive statutory procedure is provided by Congress, and that the alien's due process rights were not violated.
• Natiello v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
  203 So. 3d 209· Fla. 4th DCA· 2016-11-16 ·cited 32×
  In this slip-and-fall case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a summary judgment against plaintiffs Dorothy and William Natiello because the trial court abused its discretion by preventing plaintiffs' counsel from arguing the motion despite being only a few min
• Applegate v. Nat'l Health Care Affiliates, Inc.
  667 So. 2d 332· Fla. 1st DCA· 1995-10-24 ·cited 32×
  The court held that an untimely appeal to the Unemployment Appeals Commission should be remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the appellant was denied due process due to failure to receive timely notice of the final order.
• Martin v. Cir. Court
  627 So. 2d 1298· Fla. 4th DCA· 1993-12-10 ·cited 32×
  The Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed an administrative order by a circuit court chief judge that prohibited pro se litigant Anthony Martin from appearing without counsel in all lawsuits in the judicial circuit. The court held that such a restraint cannot be impose
• Jacobs v. City OF Lawrence
  927 F.2d 1111· 10th Cir.· 1991-03-05 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the appellants failed to state a claim for procedural due process, equal protection, or substantive due process, and that the city was immune from antitrust liability under the state action doctrine.
• Serio v. Members OF La. State Bd. OF Pardons
  821 F.2d 1112· 5th Cir.· 1987-07-17 ·cited 32×
  Members of the Louisiana State Board of Pardons are absolutely immune from § 1983 damages claims. Claims for injunctive relief that are essentially attacks on a single parole hearing require exhaustion of state habeas corpus remedies.