Violation Of Procedural Due Process

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

• Bartlett v. Colonel C.E. Fisher
  972 F.2d 911· 8th Cir.· 1992-08-13 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on both the procedural due process and First Amendment claims.
• Harris v. Lt. Dennis R. Davis
  874 F.2d 461· 7th Cir.· 1989-05-08 ·cited 10×
  The court held that the admission of inflammatory evidence in a prisoner civil rights case was not harmless error, as it prejudiced the plaintiff's credibility.
• Wofford v. Glynn Brunswick Mem'l Hosp.
  864 F.2d 117· 11th Cir.· 1989-01-23 ·cited 10×
  The court held that an internal personnel manual did not create a constitutionally protected property interest for at-will employees, as state law governs the creation of such interests and Georgia law generally permits at-will termination.
• Kendrix M. Easley v. Univ. OF Mich. Bd. OF Regents
  853 F.2d 1351· 6th Cir.· 1988-08-11 ·cited 10×
  The court held that while the district court's rulings on the merits were not erroneous, a remand was necessary for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the judge's affiliations with the law school created an appearance of partiality, requiring disqualification.
• Hester Maggett v. Norton
  519 F.2d 599· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-30 ·cited 10×
  The adequacy of the Department's procedures for providing actual notice to AFDC recipients presents a substantial constitutional question requiring a three-judge court.
• Campbell v. Masur
  486 F.2d 554· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-29 ·cited 10×
  The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of a new Supreme Court decision regarding jurisdiction.
• Sullivan Props., Inc. v. City of Winter Springs
  899 F. Supp. 587· M.D. Fla.· 1995-09-25 ·cited 9×
  The court held that the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged violations of equal protection and procedural due process rights, and therefore the motion to dismiss was denied.
• Darnell v. Col. John H. Ford
  903 F.2d 556· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-11 ·cited 9×
  The court held that while Darnell's First Amendment rights were violated, the district court erred in reinstating the full $400,000 damage award; Darnell should be reinstated as a troop commander.
• Lady J. Lingerie, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville
  973 F. Supp. 1428· M.D. Fla.· 1997-08-26 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the city's ordinances, while regulating adult entertainment, did not violate procedural due process and provided sufficient alternative avenues for communication. The court also found that nude dancing is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.
• LEE Cnty. v. Sylvan Zemel
  675 So. 2d 1378· Fla. 2d DCA· 1996-04-10 ·cited 8×
  Lee County appealed a trial court judgment that invalidated land use plan amendments on constitutional grounds, finding them arbitrary and capricious as applied to the Zemels' property. The court reversed, holding that constitutional challenges to agency action must be pursued th
• Pearson v. Fair
  935 F.2d 401· 1st Cir.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the consent decrees and constitutional clauses did not require the application of specific clinical standards to patient sequestration, and affirmed the district court's decisions on the sequestration dispute and MPU controversy, but vacated the attorneys' fee
• Bennie Brewer v. Parkman
  918 F.2d 1336· 8th Cir.· 1990-11-15 ·cited 8×
  A public employee with a property interest in employment is entitled to a pre-termination hearing, and back pay can be awarded as equitable relief to vindicate this right without a finding that the employee would not have been terminated had a hearing been held.
• Clark v. Twp. OF Falls & James Kettler
  890 F.2d 611· 3d Cir.· 1989-11-22 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the jury's finding of a procedural due process violation could not be sustained because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a protected property or liberty interest, and thus the district court erred in denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdi
• Price v. Brittain
  874 F.2d 252· 5th Cir.· 1989-05-31 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while some of the employee's external communications were protected speech, his internal disruptive statements were not, and the employer's qualified immunity protected against due process claims. Furthermore, the court found no private right of action under 4
• Fraternal Order OF Police v. Tucker
  868 F.2d 74· 3d Cir.· 1989-02-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that while officers had a reasonable suspicion for urinalysis, they were denied procedural due process by not being informed of the evidence against them and not being given an adequate opportunity to respond to dismissal charges. The court also found that the pres
• Sheley v. Dugger
  824 F.2d 1551· 11th Cir.· 1987-08-21 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the inmate's claims of procedural due process, Eighth Amendment, substantive due process, and equal protection violations were without merit, emphasizing deference to prison administrators' decisions.
• Deretich v. Off. OF Admin. Hearings
  798 F.2d 1147· 8th Cir.· 1986-08-13 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial, nor in dismissing the First Amendment and Section 1985 claims, and that res judicata properly barred certain due process claims.
• Kester v. Horner
  778 F.2d 1565· Fed. Cir.· 1985-11-21 ·cited 8×
• Chukwuemeka v. Ikpeazu
  775 F.2d 250· 8th Cir.· 1985-10-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a student's academic dismissal was not a violation of due process, as there was a rational basis for the university's decision and the procedures afforded were adequate.
• Kraemer v. Heckler
  737 F.2d 214· 2d Cir.· 1984-06-12 ·cited 8×
  A Utilization Review Committee's determination of medical necessity for Medicare benefits is not 'state action' because it is based on private professional medical judgment, not government dictate.
• Ferris v. Winn
  242 So. 3d 509· Fla. 2d DCA· 2018-04-06 ·cited 7×
  A parent's procedural due process rights are violated when provided less than twenty-four hours' notice of a hearing affecting parental rights, absent an emergency situation such as threat of physical harm to the child or improper removal from the state.
• Jackson Court Condos., Inc. v. City OF NEW Orleans
  874 F.2d 1070· 5th Cir.· 1989-06-13 ·cited 7×
  Summary judgment was inappropriate on Jackson Court's equal protection claim because factual findings were needed to determine if it was similarly situated to other exempted time-shares.
• The Ga. Elec. Life Safety & Sys. Ass'n, Inc. v. The City of Sandy Springs
  965 F.3d 1270· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-17 ·cited 6×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal, holding that the ordinance imposing fines on alarm companies for false alarms is a rational economic regulation and that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the ordinance's procedural due process aspects becaus
• Project v. Kemp
  918 F.3d 1262· 11th Cir.· 2019-03-21 ·cited 6×
  In this consolidated appeal, the Eleventh Circuit considered whether Georgia's absentee voting procedures violated procedural due process by rejecting mail-in ballots with perceived signature mismatches without providing notice, an opportunity to be heard, or a chance to appeal b
• Magnuson v. The City OF Hickory Hills
  933 F.2d 562· 7th Cir.· 1991-05-29 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the Magnusons' claims were moot because they had complied with the sewer rehabilitation program and faced no reasonable expectation of future harm, and their constitutional claims lacked merit.
• Rosa R. v. Connelly
  889 F.2d 435· 2d Cir.· 1989-11-09 ·cited 6×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the school board's actions did not violate due process or equal protection, and that the local board was not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity.
• Rogers v. Kelly
  866 F.2d 997· 8th Cir.· 1989-01-26 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court did not err in awarding only nominal damages when the plaintiff proved a procedural due process violation but no actual injury, and did not abuse its discretion in calculating attorney fees.
• Birkenholz v. Sluyter
  857 F.2d 1214· 8th Cir.· 1988-09-27 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity because the plaintiff's due process rights were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violation, given the availability of state remedies.
• Levi v. Univ. OF Tex. AT SAN Antonio
  840 F.2d 277· 5th Cir.· 1988-03-23 ·cited 6×
  The court held that a rational trier of fact could not find the university's tenure decision irrational, and insufficient evidence was presented for the conspiracy claim.
• Wayland Taylor v. E.W. Cochran
  830 F.2d 900· 8th Cir.· 1987-10-05 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to show constitutionally protected conduct was a motivating factor in his firing, and that the evidence of financial reasons for the layoff was unrebutted.
• Hamilton Bank OF Johnson City v. Williamson Cnty. Reg'l Planning Comm'n
  729 F.2d 402· 6th Cir.· 1984-03-07 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the effects of the defendants' actions did not constitute a taking requiring compensation, and even a temporary deprivation of investment-backed expectations does not establish an entitlement to damages.
• Cummings v. Dunn
  630 F.2d 649· 8th Cir.· 1980-09-29 ·cited 6×
  Summary judgment was appropriate regarding the procedural due process claim and conditions of confinement, but inappropriate regarding the denial of medication claim.
• Fernez v. Calabrese
  760 So. 2d 1144· Fla. 5th DCA· 2000-07-07 ·cited 5×
  A claim of qualified immunity cannot support interlocutory certiorari review when the underlying cause of action—here, damages for violation of procedural due process and free speech rights under the Florida Constitution—is not recognized as an actionable tort under Florida law.
• Taylor Inv., Ltd. v. Upper Darby Twp.
  983 F.2d 1285· 3d Cir.· 1993-01-25 ·cited 5×
  The appellate court held that the plaintiffs' civil rights claims were not ripe for judicial review because they had not allowed the local zoning authorities to reach a final decision on the matter. The court vacated the district court's judgment and remanded with instructions to
• Soldal v. Cnty. OF Cook
  923 F.2d 1241· 7th Cir.· 1991-01-24 ·cited 5×
  The court should remand the Fourteenth Amendment claim for trial because the damage to the trailer constituted an independent deprivation of property, and the Fourth Amendment applies to unreasonable seizures in civil proceedings.
• Lockary v. Kayfetz
  917 F.2d 1150· 9th Cir.· 1990-07-18 ·cited 5×
  The court held that appellants raised triable issues of fact regarding their 'as applied' takings claim and their substantive due process/equal protection claims, but their precondemnation blight claim was not ripe and their procedural due process claims regarding notice were pro
• Brucker v. City of Doraville
  38 F.4th 876· 11th Cir.· 2022-06-24 ·cited 4×
  The City's financial reliance on fines and fees does not create an unconstitutional risk of bias in its municipal court judge, prosecutor, police, or code enforcement agents, as their independence and lack of direct financial incentive in individual case outcomes are sufficient.
• New Port Largo, Inc. v. Monroe Cnty.
  873 F. Supp. 633· S.D. Fla.· 1994-12-21 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment takings claim was not ripe because it failed to exhaust state remedies for inverse condemnation. However, the due process claims were ripe.
• McMATH v. City OF Gary
  976 F.2d 1026· 7th Cir.· 1992-09-28 ·cited 4×
  The court held that while the plaintiff's complaint adequately alleged a violation of a liberty interest to survive a motion to dismiss, there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to link the defendants to the public dissemination of stigmatizing statements about the plai
• Nestor Colon Medina & Sucesores, Inc. v. Patria G. Custodio
  964 F.2d 32· 1st Cir.· 1992-05-07 ·cited 4×
  The court affirmed summary judgment on most claims but reversed and remanded for further proceedings on the First Amendment claim regarding the residential site permit, finding that discovery should have been allowed.
• Spreen v. Brey
  961 F.2d 109· 7th Cir.· 1992-04-01 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether defendants misled the plaintiff into resigning, and that the plaintiff had a clearly established constitutional right to procedural due process if her resignation was involuntary.
• Knight v. Lombardi
  952 F.2d 177· 8th Cir.· 1991-12-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the seizure of inmate mail, reasonably related to penological interests and supported by legitimate security concerns, did not violate the inmate's First Amendment rights, and the procedural due process claim failed due to lack of alleged injury.
• Girard v. Klopfenstein
  930 F.2d 738· 9th Cir.· 1991-04-15 ·cited 4×
  The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required for a constitutional challenge to debarment procedures, and that the ASCS debarment procedures did not violate the APA or procedural due process. The appeal concerning Klopfenstein was dismissed as moot.
• Kendrix M. Easley v. Univ. OF Mich. Bd. OF Regents
  906 F.2d 1143· 6th Cir.· 1990-07-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Judge Feikens did not abuse his discretion in denying the recusal motion, as his affiliations with the University of Michigan did not create a reasonable question about his impartiality.
• Morris v. Clifford
  903 F.2d 574· 8th Cir.· 1990-05-16 ·cited 4×
  The court held that genuine issues of material fact exist regarding whether the defendants' actions violated clearly established law, precluding summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds.
• Christoffersen v. Wash. State AIR Nat'l Guard
  855 F.2d 1437· 9th Cir.· 1988-08-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the appellants' claims challenging their nonretention in the Washington Air National Guard were non-reviewable by civilian courts due to the military non-interference doctrine and the Mindes test factors, and that the regulation under which they were discharge
• Jackson v. Bair
  851 F.2d 714· 4th Cir.· 1988-07-13 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the First Amendment claim because Jackson's speech concerned a matter of public concern and genuine issues of material fact remained regarding the balancing of interests and causation.
• Gattis v. Carroll Gravett
  806 F.2d 778· 8th Cir.· 1986-12-02 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Arkansas legislature's amendment to the civil service law extinguished the property interest in continued employment for sheriffs' department majors, thus they were not entitled to pre-termination due process.
• Franco v. Moreland
  805 F.2d 798· 8th Cir.· 1986-11-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the St. Louis County Jail Directive 301 created a protectible liberty interest, and the jury instructions failed to adequately inform the jury of the procedural due process requirements for placing an inmate in administrative segregation.
• Ingram v. Papalia
  804 F.2d 595· 10th Cir.· 1986-11-06 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a prisoner has no constitutional property or liberty interest in a prison job, and state law did not create such an interest.