Violation Of Procedural Due Process

270 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · see the citation graph · browse and sort

• Wilson v. Taylor
  658 F.2d 1021· 5th Cir.· 1981-10-13 ·cited 107×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the true reason for the plaintiff's discharge, requiring reversal of summary judgment.
• Rebekka Anne Behr v. Campbell
  8 F.4th 1206· 11th Cir.· 2021-08-12 ·cited 106×
  The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a narrow jurisdictional rule that applies only when a party seeks to appeal a state court judgment in federal district court; it does not bar claims seeking damages for constitutional violations that occurred during state proceedings, even if relate
• Wilson v. Beebe
  770 F.2d 578· 6th Cir.· 1985-08-12 ·cited 105×
  Officer Beebe is protected by official immunity under Michigan law because his actions during the arrest were discretionary.
• Herrington v. Cnty. OF Sonoma
  834 F.2d 1488· 9th Cir.· 1987-12-24 ·cited 79×
  The court should have dismissed the claims as not ripe for review because damages were not calculable.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Haire v. Fla. Dep't OF Agric. & Consumer Servs.
  870 So. 2d 774· Fla.· 2004-02-12 ·cited 52×
  The Florida Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Citrus Canker Eradication Law, which authorizes the Department of Agriculture to destroy healthy citrus trees within 1,900 feet of infected trees. The Court held that the statute is a valid exercise of the State's poli
• Schaper v. City OF Huntsville
  813 F.2d 709· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-06 ·cited 49×
  The court held that allegations of bias and conspiracy in pre-termination hearings, even if true, do not state a procedural or substantive due process claim when a post-termination administrative remedy is available.
• Perez v. Univ. OF Puerto RICO
  600 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1979-06-19 ·cited 49×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying attorney's fees to prevailing plaintiffs based on 'special circumstances' when only nominal damages were awarded.
• Bosse v. Crowell Collier AND MacMillan
  565 F.2d 602· 9th Cir.· 1977-12-06 ·cited 48×
  The majority erred in reversing the dismissal of the seventh claim for relief, as allegations of an undisclosed purpose to gain control of a debtor's company through stock pledge do not state a claim under Rule 10b-5.
• Pacheco v. Gonzalez
  809 F.2d 125· 1st Cir.· 1987-01-13 ·cited 44×
  The court held that defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment claim because it was clearly established that transitory employees are protected from politically motivated non-renewal, but they were entitled to qualified immunity on the due process c
• City OF Lauderhill v. Rhames
  864 So. 2d 432· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-10-22 ·cited 43×
  The City of Lauderhill eliminated the Lead Patrol Officer (LPO) position and reorganized its police department, requiring three former LPOs to retake sergeant exams to maintain their supervisory roles. The officers sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for substantive due process violation
• Lucas v. Chapman
  430 F.2d 945· 5th Cir.· 1970-08-06 ·cited 43×
• Dino Bello v. Walker
  840 F.2d 1124· 3d Cir.· 1988-03-01 ·cited 42×
  Municipal officials' deliberate and arbitrary abuse of power to deny a building permit can violate substantive due process, but mere delays in issuing permits do not constitute an unconstitutional taking of property.
• Russell v. Harrison
  736 F.2d 283· 5th Cir.· 1984-07-16 ·cited 42×
  The court held that summary judgment for the defendants on the substantive due process claim was proper, but summary judgment on the procedural due process claim was in error due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the availability of a hearing.
• Metro. Hous. Dev. Corp. v. Vill. OF Arlington Heights
  616 F.2d 1006· 7th Cir.· 1980-03-04 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the intervenors' federal constitutional right to procedural due process was violated by the failure to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing regarding the annexation and rezoning of a tract of land.
• White v. Roughton
  530 F.2d 750· 7th Cir.· 1976-02-27 ·cited 42×
  The court held that the denial of a preliminary injunction was improper because the township's administration of general assistance grants violated plaintiffs' procedural due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice, hearing, and established standards.
• Warren v. Crawford
  927 F.2d 559· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-26 ·cited 40×
  The court dismissed an appeal because the defendant pleaded guilty, not nolo contendere with a reservation of appeal, thus forfeiting the right to appeal, but remanded for correction of sentencing discrepancies.
• Davis v. W. Cmty. Hosp.
  755 F.2d 455· 5th Cir.· 1985-03-21 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Dr. Davis's letters were not protected speech, reversing his First Amendment claim, but affirmed his procedural due process claim. It also reversed his libel claim due to the jury finding the statements true and remanded for nominal damages on his equal protec
• Rich v. Secretary OF THE Army
  735 F.2d 1220· 10th Cir.· 1984-06-01 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the Army followed its regulations in discharging the plaintiff for fraudulent enlistment by denying homosexuality, and that the discharge did not violate his constitutional rights.
• Gold Cross Ambulance & Transfer & Standby Serv., Inc. v. City OF Kan. City
  705 F.2d 1005· 8th Cir.· 1983-04-26 ·cited 40×
  The court held that Kansas City, MAST, and their consultants are shielded from federal and state antitrust liability under the state action doctrine because the municipal ambulance system was established pursuant to state authorization and a clearly articulated state policy to di
• Nolin v. Douglas Cnty.
  903 F.2d 1546· 11th Cir.· 1990-06-26 ·cited 39×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a late motion to amend the complaint, excluding employment guidelines due to lack of authentication, and granting a directed verdict for the defendants on due process and emotional distress claims.
• Davis v. Lane
  814 F.2d 397· 7th Cir.· 1987-03-10 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the trial court erred by merging jury instructions for federal and state law claims and by directing a verdict on the due process claim, requiring a new trial.
• Ipcia M. Kercado-Melendez v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
  829 F.2d 255· 1st Cir.· 1987-09-22 ·cited 37×
  The court held that the plaintiff was in the midst of administrative proceedings when she filed her federal suit, and thus should have exhausted state remedies before proceeding in federal court.
• Unity Ventures v. Cnty. OF Lake
  841 F.2d 770· 7th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' constitutional and antitrust claims were not ripe for adjudication because they had not obtained a final decision from the governmental entities regarding their application for a sewer connection.
• Whitfield v. Ill. Bd. OF LAW Exam'rs
  504 F.2d 474· 7th Cir.· 1974-10-18 ·cited 36×
  The court held that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to state a claim for relief regarding the constitutionality of the bar examination or the grading procedures, and that the requested procedural due process rights were not constitutionally required in this context.
• Meyers v. Alldredge
  492 F.2d 296· 3d Cir.· 1974-02-14 ·cited 36×
  The court held that while due process applies to prison disciplinary hearings involving good time forfeiture, the presence of an official with substantial personal involvement in the underlying events on the disciplinary committee violates the right to an impartial tribunal. Howe
• 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.
• 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.
• 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
• 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.
• 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.
• Wheeler v. Mental Health & Mental Retardation Auth. OF Harris Cnty.
  752 F.2d 1063· 5th Cir.· 1985-02-11 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the plaintiff was denied constitutional procedural due process when she was not given prior written notice of dismissal reasons and an opportunity to respond, but that she did not establish a violation of MHMRA's internal procedures. The court also vacated the
• United States v. Cummins
  425 F.2d 646· 8th Cir.· 1970-04-21 ·cited 32×
  The court held that the registrant was denied procedural due process by not being informed of the reasons for the State Director's appeal and that there was no basis-in-fact for his I-A classification.
• Chandler v. Captain William Baird
  926 F.2d 1057· 11th Cir.· 1991-03-15 ·cited 31×
  The court held that a prisoner's placement in administrative confinement did not violate procedural due process because the relevant Florida rule did not create a liberty interest, and that the prisoner failed to show actual prejudice from alleged restrictions on access to courts
• Gutzwiller v. Fenik
  860 F.2d 1317· 6th Cir.· 1988-11-01 ·cited 30×
  The court held that there was insufficient evidence to support claims of sex discrimination and substantive due process violations against the defendants, and that judicial intervention in academic tenure decisions is generally inappropriate.
• Davis v. Vill. Park II Realty Co.
  578 F.2d 461· 2d Cir.· 1978-04-21 ·cited 30×
  The court held that the alleged chilling effect on First Amendment rights, coupled with potential nominal damages and attorney fees, is sufficient to prevent a civil rights claim from becoming moot, even if injunctive relief is no longer possible.
• Hattie M. Blunt v. Marion Cnty. Sch. Bd.
  515 F.2d 951· 5th Cir.· 1975-07-14 ·cited 30×
  The court held that substantial evidence supported the school board's finding of incompetency, and the teacher's dismissal did not violate her constitutional rights to substantive due process, equal protection, or procedural due process.
• Landmark Land Co. OF Okla., Inc. v. R.E. "Buck" Buchanan
  874 F.2d 717· 10th Cir.· 1989-05-03 ·cited 28×
  The court held that the takings, substantive due process, and equal protection claims were not ripe for review because the city had not reached a final decision regarding the property's development, and that procedural due process requirements were satisfied by the available hear
• Burris v. Willis Indep. Sch. Dist., Inc.
  713 F.2d 1087· 5th Cir.· 1983-09-06 ·cited 28×
  The court held that Burris did not have a property interest in his employment renewal and that the alleged liberty deprivations did not rise to constitutional concern, but remanded the First Amendment claim for further factual determination.
• Colm v. Cyrus R. Vance
  567 F.2d 1125· D.C. Cir.· 1977-11-18 ·cited 28×
• Kelleher v. Flawn
  761 F.2d 1079· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-03 ·cited 27×
  The court held that the reassignment of an assistant instructor was not a First Amendment violation because it was based on insubordination, not protected speech, and did not violate due process as there was no deprivation of a property interest or a liberty interest requiring a
• Wilson v. Robinson
  668 F.2d 380· 8th Cir.· 1981-12-30 ·cited 26×
  The court held that a county ordinance creating procedural rights for employee termination is valid and enforceable under state law, and that exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required for section 1983 claims.
• Boatman v. Town OF Oakland
  76 F.3d 341· 11th Cir.· 1996-02-28 ·cited 24×
  The Boatmans sought federal court relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming the Town of Oakland's refusal to issue a certificate of occupancy for their manufactured home violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Eleventh Circuit held that the dispute presented onl