Violation Of Procedural Due Process

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

• Kirkland v. Northside Indep. Sch. Dist.
  890 F.2d 794· 5th Cir.· 1989-12-22 ·cited 24×
  A public school teacher's use of a non-approved supplemental reading list, without seeking administrative approval, does not constitute constitutionally protected speech on a matter of public concern.
• Feliciano-Angulo v. Hon. Hector Rivera-Cruz
  858 F.2d 40· 1st Cir.· 1988-09-30 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the defendant was entitled to qualified immunity from damages for the procedural due process claim, but not for the First Amendment claims, as factual issues regarding motive remained.
• Mahoney v. Hankin
  844 F.2d 64· 2d Cir.· 1988-04-12 ·cited 24×
  The denial of a claim of qualified immunity is an appealable final decision only to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, not fact.
• Joseph Darlak, M.D. v. Bobear
  814 F.2d 1055· 5th Cir.· 1987-04-20 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment barred suits against state entities DHHR and Charity, and that Dr. Darlak received sufficient due process regarding his suspension from hospital privileges.
• Batterton v. The Tex. Gen. Land Off.
  783 F.2d 1220· 5th Cir.· 1986-03-03 ·cited 24×
  The court held that the employees did not possess a constitutionally protected property interest in their jobs under Texas law and failed to present sufficient evidence to support their First Amendment claim, thus affirming the grant of summary judgment.
• Nanette Griffeth v. Detrich
  603 F.2d 118· 9th Cir.· 1979-08-29 ·cited 24×
• Powell v. Ward
  542 F.2d 101· 2d Cir.· 1976-09-17 ·cited 24×
  Prison officials responsible for security are not automatically disqualified from adjudicating security-related disciplinary charges solely due to their positions. A seven-day limit for disciplinary hearings can be extended in emergencies with proper authorization.
• Wilson v. The Health & Hosp. Corp. OF Marion Cnty.
  620 F.2d 1201· 7th Cir.· 1980-04-28 ·cited 23×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a Fourth Amendment claim due to a lack of demonstrated expectation of privacy and that procedural due process was satisfied by the notices provided.
• City OF Coconut Creek v. City OF Deerfield Beach
  840 So. 2d 389· Fla. 4th DCA· 2003-03-19 ·cited 22×
  City of Coconut Creek challenged a site plan approval granted by the City of Deerfield Beach for an energy center, claiming it violated the Comprehensive Plan and constitutional due process. The court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Coconut Creek failed to comply with a stat
• Skeets v. Johnson
  805 F.2d 767· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 22×
  The majority held that an at-will state employee possessed a constitutionally protected property right due to grievance procedures and was entitled to reinstatement with backpay without proving he would have been discharged absent procedural errors. The dissent disagreed with all
• Jarius Piphus v. Carey
  545 F.2d 30· 7th Cir.· 1976-11-22 ·cited 22×
  The court held that damages and equitable/declaratory relief should have been granted for due process violations, even without proof of individualized injury.
• Koch v. Yunich
  533 F.2d 80· 2d Cir.· 1976-04-02 ·cited 22×
  The court held that the challenged sections of the New York Civil Service Law do not violate substantive due process, procedural due process, equal protection, or the contract clause, and that the claims were properly dismissed.
• Alderman v. The Philadelphia Hous. Auth.
  496 F.2d 164· 3d Cir.· 1974-04-16 ·cited 22×
  A prior restraint on all discussion of political matters by public employees is an impermissible infringement of First Amendment rights, even if justified by an interest in impartiality.
• United States v. Lulac
  793 F.2d 636· 5th Cir.· 1986-07-02 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court erred in issuing a preliminary injunction without adequately assessing the validity of the PPST and its relationship to the State's legitimate interests, and vacated the injunction.
• Curlott v. Campbell
  598 F.2d 1175· 9th Cir.· 1979-06-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the October 11 judgment was not a final appealable order, thus res judicata did not bar consideration of the due process claims. It further held that pre-reduction due process procedures were not constitutionally required for supplementary COLA benefits, as th
• Imbler v. Pachtman
  500 F.2d 1301· 9th Cir.· 1974-07-12 ·cited 20×
  A prosecutor is absolutely immune from civil liability for acts committed in the performance of duties integral to the judicial process, even if malicious or knowing.
• Pervis v. LaMARQUE Indep. Sch. Dist.
  466 F.2d 1054· 5th Cir.· 1972-09-19 ·cited 20×
  A subsequent hearing does not cure the initial lack of procedural due process when students are suspended for a significant period without a prior hearing.
• Dunmar v. Ailes
  348 F.2d 51· D.C. Cir.· 1965-05-20 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and that the appellant received adequate procedural due process, and that the Honor Code was not void for vagueness, and that the Secretary of the Army had the power to separate the appellant.
• Nasierowski Bros. Inv. Co. v. City OF Sterling Heights
  949 F.2d 890· 6th Cir.· 1991-11-22 ·cited 19×
  Procedural due process claims in zoning matters are not always subject to finality requirements for ripeness.
• Davis v. Or. State Univ.
  591 F.2d 493· 9th Cir.· 1978-11-13 ·cited 19×
  A claim for violation of a liberty interest does not survive the death of the individual whose interest was allegedly violated, and absent a protectable liberty interest, a § 1983 claim for damages is not viable.
• Alvarez v. Attorney Gen. FOR the State of Fla.
  679 F.3d 1257· 11th Cir.· 2012-05-08 ·cited 18×
  Carl Robert Alvarez, convicted in 1991 of first-degree murder, sexual battery, and aggravated child abuse, appealed a district court dismissal of his § 1983 civil rights action challenging Florida's denial of his petition for postconviction DNA testing. The Eleventh Circuit affir
• Ammons v. Okeechobee Cnty.
  710 So. 2d 641· Fla. 4th DCA· 1998-04-15 ·cited 18×
  Lisa Ammons and other appellants sought damages and injunctive relief after Okeechobee County revoked their occupational license for a commercial aluminum business, claiming the county was equitably estopped from doing so and that their constitutional rights were violated. The Fo
• Green v. The City OF Montezuma
  650 F.2d 648· 5th Cir.· 1981-07-13 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the complaint as frivolous without first docketing the case and properly evaluating the IFP application.
• WCI Cmtys., Inc. v. City OF Coral Springs
  885 So. 2d 912· Fla. 4th DCA· 2004-09-29 ·cited 17×
  WCI Communities challenged a nine-month temporary moratorium on multi-family development applications enacted by the City of Coral Springs, arguing it violated procedural and substantive due process rights and constituted a regulatory taking. The court affirmed the trial court's
• Dorfmont v. Brown
  913 F.2d 1399· 9th Cir.· 1990-09-10 ·cited 16×
  The court did not decide whether constitutional challenges to security clearance decisions made by officials deriving authority from the President are judicially reviewable.
• Watertown Equip. Co. & Edward Moe, Jr. v. Norwest Bank Watertown, N.A.
  830 F.2d 1487· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-08 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the South Dakota attachment statute, as applied, violated clearly established due process rights, and therefore the defendants were not entitled to qualified immunity.
• Francine Newman v. The Bd. OF Educ. OF the City Sch. Dist. OF NEW York
  508 F.2d 277· 2d Cir.· 1975-01-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the federal due process claims were not raised or adjudicated in the prior state court proceeding, thus res judicata did not apply.
• Licia T. M. Cardinale v. Wash. Tech. Inst.
  500 F.2d 791· D.C. Cir.· 1974-06-25 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint sufficiently stated a claim arising under the Constitution to invoke the District Court's jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
• Harris v. Cnty. OF Riverside
  904 F.2d 497· 9th Cir.· 1990-05-30 ·cited 15×
  The court held that the County's rezoning of Harris' property without individual notice violated his procedural due process rights, rendering the rezoning invalid.
• Hill v. Grp. Three Hous. Dev. Corp.
  799 F.2d 385· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-21 ·cited 15×
  Applicants for Section 8 housing do not possess a constitutionally protected property interest merely by meeting income and family eligibility requirements, as private owners retain significant discretion in tenant selection.
• Arnold Ritter, D.O. v. Cohen
  797 F.2d 119· 3d Cir.· 1986-07-23 ·cited 15×
  The court held that even if a medical provider had a property interest in participating in the state Medicaid program, the pre-termination notice and opportunity to respond, coupled with a post-termination hearing, satisfied due process requirements.
• Flanagan v. Munger
  890 F.2d 1557· 10th Cir.· 1989-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the public concern test of Pickering/Connick does not apply to off-duty, non-work-related speech, and that the balance tips in favor of the officers' free speech rights, but the Chief of Police is entitled to qualified immunity.
• Philip W.L. LUM v. Jensen
  876 F.2d 1385· 9th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 14×
  Government officials are entitled to qualified immunity when the law allegedly violated was not clearly established at the time of the conduct, especially when there is inter-circuit conflict and no binding precedent in the relevant circuit.
• Ocean Concrete, Inc. v. Indian River Cnty.
  241 So. 3d 181· Fla. 4th DCA· 2018-03-14 ·cited 13×
  A use that is expressly permitted under a zoning code at the time of a government action is a nonspeculative existing use under the Harris Act, regardless of the economic feasibility of the project. A use that is permitted under zoning code is per se compatible with surrounding l
• Commissioner Willie J. Junior v. China Pearl Reed and Donald Reed
  693 So. 2d 586· Fla. 1st DCA· 1997-02-20 ·cited 13×
  Commissioner Willie J. Junior appealed the denial of his immunity claims in a civil rights action brought by the Reeds under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court held that while Commissioner Junior is not protected by absolute immunity for his administrative actions in directing a cemeter
• Sierra Lake Reserve v. The City OF Rocklin
  938 F.2d 951· 9th Cir.· 1991-07-09 ·cited 13×
• Weimer v. Amen
  870 F.2d 1400· 8th Cir.· 1989-03-23 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims of procedural and substantive due process violations failed to state a claim cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because the alleged fraudulent actions by state officials were random and unauthorized, and thus the state's post-deprivation
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. M.D. Hardy, M.D.
  943 F.2d 1406· 5th Cir.· 1991-09-26 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the district court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint and in dismissing his suit under Rule 12(b)(6) without accepting his allegations of bias as true.
• PFZ Props., Inc. v. Rodriguez
  928 F.2d 28· 1st Cir.· 1991-03-18 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of due process or equal protection, as the post-deprivation remedies provided by Puerto Rico law were constitutionally adequate and the alleged actions did not rise to the level of a f
• Curtis W. Caine, Jr., M.D. v. Hardy, M.D.
  905 F.2d 858· 5th Cir.· 1990-06-27 ·cited 12×
• Austern v. The Chicago Bd. Options Exch., Inc.
  898 F.2d 882· 2d Cir.· 1990-03-15 ·cited 12×
  A commercial organization sponsoring a contractually agreed upon arbitration is immune from civil liability for improperly noticing the arbitration hearing and improperly selecting the arbitration panel, as these acts are integrally related to the arbitral process.
• Sydell R. Kraft v. Jacka
  872 F.2d 862· 9th Cir.· 1989-04-12 ·cited 12×
  The Board's denial of a gaming license was permissible, as it was based on concerns about effective control of the business by an unsuitable individual, not solely on an individual's personal relationship.
• Kerr Ctr. Parents Assoc. v. Charles
  842 F.2d 1052· 9th Cir.· 1988-03-09 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the Eleventh Amendment bars suits against the state unless it has waived immunity or Congress has abrogated it, and that the EAHCA did not abrogate immunity. The court also held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required under the circumstance
• Farrish v. Miss. State Parole Bd.
  836 F.2d 969· 5th Cir.· 1988-02-05 ·cited 12×
  Officials who conducted a preliminary parole revocation hearing are absolutely immune from damages, but the Commissioner of Corrections is only entitled to qualified immunity for failing to establish adequate procedures.
• Jai K. Varandani v. Bowen
  824 F.2d 307· 4th Cir.· 1987-07-28 ·cited 12×
  The court held that a physician is not entitled to a formal, pre-suspension evidentiary hearing before being suspended from Medicare reimbursement, and the statute and regulations are not unconstitutionally vague.
• DiMASSIMO v. City OF Clearwater
  805 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-12-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that tenants have a protectable property interest in continued utility service under Florida law, requiring pre-termination notice from the City to prevent constructive eviction, but rejected claims for substantive due process and equal protection violations.
• Collins v. King
  743 F.2d 248· 5th Cir.· 1984-09-24 ·cited 12×
  A prisoner's claim of a biased tribunal in a disciplinary hearing, absent allegations of constitutionally inadequate state post-deprivation remedies, does not state a procedural due process violation under the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Nieto v. SAN Perlita Indep. Sch. Dist.
  894 F.2d 174· 5th Cir.· 1990-02-16 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts to overcome the defense, and his speech caused significant disruption outweighing its public concern value.
• Finkelstein v. Bergna
  881 F.2d 702· 9th Cir.· 1989-08-02 ·cited 11×
  The court held that the defendant was not entitled to qualified immunity on the plaintiff's First Amendment claim, nor on his procedural due process claims regarding property and liberty interests, because the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.
• Dirt, Inc. v. Mobile Cnty. Comm'n
  739 F.2d 1562· 11th Cir.· 1984-08-27 ·cited 11×
  The court held that while the Act itself is facially valid, the county's administration of the Act violated appellants' procedural due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice of the permit denial hearing. However, claims of unconstitutional taking and vagueness were