Violation Of Procedural Due Process

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

• Raye Howe v. H.G. Baker
  796 F.2d 1355· 11th Cir.· 1986-08-14 ·cited 4×
  Government officials are shielded by qualified immunity from civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights. The court found that the rights Howe claimed were not clearly established at the time of the alleged violations.
• Allen v. City OF Kinloch
  763 F.2d 335· 8th Cir.· 1985-05-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a state tort remedy, such as replevin, satisfies due process requirements for a random and unauthorized deprivation of property, even if the deprivation was tortious.
• Beckham v. Harris
  756 F.2d 1032· 4th Cir.· 1985-03-13 ·cited 4×
  A discharged employee who admits misconduct and fails to request a pre-termination hearing within the prescribed time frame has no constitutionally protected property or liberty interest in continued employment.
• Cospito v. Heckler
  742 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1984-08-10 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the statutory scheme terminating SSI benefits based on hospital accreditation was an unconstitutional delegation of power and violated due process.
• Ostroff v. State
  554 F. Supp. 347· M.D. Fla.· 1983-01-31 ·cited 4×
  The court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims for damages arising from the termination of Social Security benefits, due to the Social Security Act's limitations and Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.
• Cain v. McQUEEN
  580 F.2d 1001· 9th Cir.· 1978-08-24 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the plaintiff, a probationary teacher under Nevada law, was entitled to a due process hearing before her contract could be non-renewed, and affirmed the district court's order to that effect.
• Leik v. Barnhart
  296 F. Supp. 2d 1345· M.D. Fla.· 2003-03-03 ·cited 3×
  Plaintiff sought judicial review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. The court reversed and remanded the ALJ's decision because the ALJ violated the claimant's procedural due process rights by denying his request for a supplemental hearing to cr
• Gainer v. City of Winter Haven
  170 F. Supp. 2d 1225· M.D. Fla.· 2001-06-13 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' First Amendment claims failed because their speech was not a matter of public concern or did not play a substantial part in their termination, and their procedural due process claims failed due to adequate state remedies.
• Baker v. Alderman
  766 F. Supp. 1112· M.D. Fla.· 1991-06-03 ·cited 3×
  Summary judgment is granted to Defendants on all claims, as Plaintiff resigned by operation of law and the court lacks jurisdiction over the constitutional claim due to the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
• Carcamo v. Miami-Dade Cnty.
  284 F. Supp. 2d 1362· S.D. Fla.· 2003-09-03 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiff's procedural due process rights were not violated because an adequate post-deprivation remedy was available under Florida law, even though the plaintiff did not utilize it.
• Everett v. City of Tallahassee
  840 F. Supp. 1528· N.D. Fla.· 1993-07-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the City's denial of the plaintiff's rezoning request was not arbitrary or capricious, as it was based on a consistently applied policy regarding non-residential development along Thomasville Road.
• LaBARON v. United States
  989 F.2d 425· 10th Cir.· 1993-03-30 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to a pre-termination hearing before the termination of their health services, and that their equal protection claim was premature.
• Barnes v. Healy
  980 F.2d 572· 9th Cir.· 1992-11-25 ·cited 2×
  The court held that due process requires specific information in child support notices, including the federally defined collection date and specific reasons for denying pass-through payments, and that such notice must extend to non-AFDC families.
• Brickner v. Voinovich
  977 F.2d 235· 6th Cir.· 1992-10-13 ·cited 2×
  The court held that adequate state mechanisms existed to provide due process to the plaintiff, affirming the district court's judgment.
• Brown v. Indep. Sch. Dist. no. I-06 of McCURTAIN Cnty.
  974 F.2d 1237· 10th Cir.· 1992-08-24 ·cited 2×
  The court held that school support personnel employed under annual contracts do not have a property interest in the renewal of those contracts, absent a specific statutory or policy provision to the contrary.
• Bigelow v. Mich. Dep't OF Natural Res. & David F. Hales
  970 F.2d 154· 6th Cir.· 1992-07-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the plaintiffs' federal claims (takings, equal protection, procedural due process) were not ripe for review because they had not exhausted available state remedies, specifically inverse condemnation proceedings.
• Gold Coast Publ'ns, Inc. v. Corrigan
  798 F. Supp. 1558· S.D. Fla.· 1992-07-09 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Coral Gables newsrack ordinance's provisions on rack color, lettering size, and the term 'equivalent' were unconstitutional prior restraints, but the rest of the ordinance was valid and severable.
• Coriz v. Martinez
  915 F.2d 1469· 10th Cir.· 1990-10-16 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the defendants were qualifiedly immune because the law regarding the adequacy of New Mexico's post-deprivation remedies was not clearly established at the time of the incident.
• Kerr Ctr. Parents Assoc. v. Charles
  897 F.2d 1463· 9th Cir.· 1990-02-26 ·cited 2×
  The court held that while the state violated the EAHCA by failing to adequately fund education for handicapped children, the district court's specific relief order was too prescriptive. The court also found that exhaustion of administrative remedies was not required due to futili
• Woman v. Hodel
  878 F.2d 1203· 9th Cir.· 1989-07-05 ·cited 2×
  Federal courts have jurisdiction to review allegations that Indian probate proceedings violate the Constitution, but this case raised no colorable constitutional claims.
• Haberle v. The Univ. OF Ala. IN Birmingham
  803 F.2d 1536· 11th Cir.· 1986-11-12 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the student's dismissal from the Ph.D. program did not violate his procedural or substantive due process rights, as the university followed constitutionally adequate procedures and the dismissal was not an arbitrary departure from academic norms.
• McADAMS v. Matagorda Cnty. Appraisal Dist.
  798 F.2d 842· 5th Cir.· 1986-09-02 ·cited 2×
  The court held that a public employee's refusal to perform job duties, even if verbalized, does not transform into a First Amendment right and that the employee was not terminated for constitutionally protected speech.
• Stermetz v. Judge W.R. Harper & Sebastian Cnty.
  763 F.2d 366· 8th Cir.· 1985-06-06 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the procedural due process claim, requiring reconsideration in light of Loudermill.
• Calo v. Paine
  521 F.2d 411· 2d Cir.· 1975-08-18 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the district court erred in granting summary judgment on the plaintiff's First Amendment claim, as recent Supreme Court precedent requires consideration of such claims even for probationary employees.
• Johansson v. Miami-Dade Cnty. Value Adjustment Bd.
  346 So. 3d 90· Fla. 3d DCA· 2022-05-04 ·cited 1×
  Wayne C. Johansson appealed the dismissal of his complaint against the Miami-Dade County Value Adjustment Board (VAB), claiming the VAB violated his procedural due process rights in reviewing his property value petitions. The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the dismissal,
• Log Creek, LLC. v. Kessler
  717 F. Supp. 2d 1239· N.D. Fla.· 2010-06-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that equal protection claims were adequately alleged, but procedural due process, taking, open meeting, and defamation claims failed for various reasons including ripeness, immunity, lack of recurrence, and failure to allege fault.
• 219 S. Atl. Boulevard Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale
  239 F. Supp. 2d 1265· S.D. Fla.· 2002-12-03 ·cited 1×
  The court held that summary judgment was appropriate because no genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the plaintiff's claims, and the defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
• Hernandez v. Medows
  110 F. Supp. 86· S.D. Fla.· 2002-08-26 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the named plaintiffs met the requirements for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2), but the Florida Transplant Survivors Coalition did not establish standing.
• Baker v. Chandler
  161 F. Supp. 2d 1372· S.D. Fla.· 2001-09-19 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff's speech was not protected under the First Amendment as it did not concern a matter of public concern, and that he received adequate procedural due process. State law claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
• Occean v. Kearney
  123 F. Supp. 2d 618· S.D. Fla.· 2000-08-09 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff stated a claim for procedural due process and violations of the Child Welfare Act, but not for substantive due process.
• Pemberton v. Tallahassee Mem'l Reg'l Med. Ctr., Inc.
  66 F. Supp. 2d 1247· N.D. Fla.· 1999-10-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that forcing a pregnant woman to undergo a medically necessary caesarean section to save the fetus's life did not violate her constitutional rights, nor was it negligent, and that federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court procedural decisions.
• Coletta v. the City of N. Bay Vill.
  962 F. Supp. 1486· S.D. Fla.· 1997-04-11 ·cited 1×
  The court granted motions to dismiss Counts I and IV, finding no valid claims for substantive or procedural due process violations, but denied motions to dismiss Counts II and III, allowing claims for First Amendment violations and qualified immunity to proceed.
• Capsalis v. Worch
  902 F. Supp. 227· M.D. Fla.· 1995-04-14 ·cited 1×
  Deputy sheriffs in Florida do not have a property interest in their employment for Fourteenth Amendment due process purposes, as they serve at the pleasure of the Sheriff, and the relevant special law did not create a career service system.
• Farina v. City of Tampa
  874 F. Supp. 383· M.D. Fla.· 1994-12-13 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiffs had a protected liberty interest in notice and a hearing before being deprived of custody of the child, and that the defendants' actions violated their procedural due process rights.
• Susanno v. Lee Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs
  852 F. Supp. 980· M.D. Fla.· 1994-03-01 ·cited 1×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a jury question regarding her constitutional claims for freedom of speech, association, substantive due process, and procedural due process, as she was an at-will employee with no protected property
• Cone v. the Florida Bar
  626 F. Supp. 132· M.D. Fla.· 1985-12-18 ·cited 1×
  The court held that interest earned on nominal or short-term funds held in Florida's Interest on Trust Accounts (IOTA) program does not constitute a constitutionally protected property interest of the client, and therefore, its appropriation by the program does not violate the Fi
• Williams v. Bd. of Regents of the Univ. Sys. of Ga.
  11th Cir.· 2026-09-04
  Summary judgment was properly granted for the Board of Regents on all claims. Williams failed to establish sex discrimination under Title IX because she could not identify similarly situated male comparators and presented no convincing mosaic of circumstantial evidence of discrim
• Jefferson Cnty. Kennel Club, Inc. v. Fla. Gaming Control Comm'n
  Fla. 1st DCA· 2026-06-03
  A statute revoking pari-mutuel wagering permits from non-operative permitholders is constitutional as a general law within a broader gaming regulatory scheme, does not violate due process because gambling permits are state-granted privileges rather than protected property rights,
• Scott v. Shaw
  N.D. Fla.· 2025-11-12
  The court held that it should abstain from exercising jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims under the domestic relations exception because the case is intertwined with ongoing state court child custody and divorce proceedings.
• Bishop v. City of Boynton Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-10-01
  The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of the amended complaint without prejudice, allowing the pro se plaintiff one more opportunity to file a second amended complaint that corrects deficiencies.
• Kureti v. Coast Prof'l, Inc.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-09-19
  The court held that a private debt collector cannot violate due process rights and that diversity jurisdiction was not properly established due to lack of complete diversity. The court also found a forum selection clause in loan documents to be enforceable, requiring dismissal of
• Burt v. President of Univ. of Fla.
  11th Cir.· 2025-08-20
  The Eleventh Circuit held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal because the notice of appeal was filed untimely, applying its precedent in Schuurman v. Motor Vessel Betty K V.
• Daniels v. Town of Palm Beach
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-08-18
  The court held that the Fifth Amendment due process claim is dismissed, the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is dismissed due to adequate state remedies, and the First Amendment retaliation claim is dismissed for failure to plead absence of probable cause.
• Abreu v. Assistant Field Officer Dir. Krome Processing Ctr.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-07-30
  The court held that the petitioner's circumstances did not render the mandatory detention statute unconstitutional as applied, nor did they demonstrate a due process violation.
• Kendrick v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr. (Hillsborough County)
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-06-13
  The court held that a federal court cannot grant habeas relief for claims not cognizable under federal law or for which adequate state remedies exist. The court denied claims regarding prosecutorial fraud and due process violations for mandatory costs, and dismissed a claim about
• Polisi v. Flynn
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-05-27
  Claims against Judge Flynn are dismissed with prejudice due to judicial immunity, and other claims are dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction under Younger abstention.
• MedEnvios Healthcare, Inc. v. United States Dep't of Health & Human Servs.
  S.D. Fla.· 2025-04-21
  The court held that the defendant's interpretation of the prior order was correct, and the plaintiff is entitled to documentation to challenge overpayments, not a refund.
• Hall v. Masters
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-04-04
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish genuine issues of material fact on his claims of excessive seclusion, procedural due process violations, denial of access to courts, and retaliation, entitling the defendants to summary judgment.
• Stewart v. Brevard Cnty.
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-06
  The court held that the plaintiff's claims were not ripe because he had not received a final decision from the County regarding his waiver request, nor had he sufficiently demonstrated futility in seeking such a decision.
• Epoch Props., Inc. v. City of Palmetto
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-03-04
  The court held that Epoch has standing as a real party in interest and sufficiently alleged equitable title, but dismissed Epoch's per se takings claim because the property retained some economic value.