green
Positive treatment
3.1 score
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1977
2001
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Ransom v. Marrazzo
Accord, Koger v. Guarino, 412 F.Supp. 1375, 1386 (E.D.Pa.), aff'd without opinion, 549 F.2d 795 (3d Cir.1977) (holding that "a water user has a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' to continued water service which is a property interest to which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies.") As a constitutionally cognizable state law property interest, the interest in receiving water service is subject to the tri-partite balancing analysis of 1) the property interest, 2) the risk of erroneous deprivation, and 3) the government's interest, articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S…
discussed
Cited "see"
Ransom v. Marrazzo
Accord, Roger v. Guarino, 412 F.Supp. 1375, 1386 (E.D.Pa.), affd without opinion, 549 F.2d 795 (3d Cir.1977) (holding that “a water user has a ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’ to continued water service which is a property interest to which the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies.”) As a constitutionally cognizable state law property interest, the interest in receiving water service is subject to the tri-partite balancing analysis of 1) the property interest, 2) the risk of erroneous deprivation, and 3) the government’s interest, articulated in Mathews v. Eldridge…
discussed
Cited "see"
Peterson v. Sorlien
(2×)
See Jackson v. Associated Hospital Service, 414 F.Supp. 315 (E.D.Pa.1976), aff’d, 549 F.2d 795 (3rd Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 832 , 98 S.Ct. 117 , 54 L.Ed.2d 93 (1977); Rankin v. Howard, 457 F.Supp. 70, 74-75 (D.Ariz. 1978); cf. Mandelkorn v. Patrick, 359 F.Supp. 692, 697 (D.D.C.1973).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Opn. No.
Due process requires the provision of an opportunity, prior to termination of service, for the presentation of a customer's complaint that he is being over-charged or charged for services not rendered ( id., p 16; see also Koger v Guarino, 412 F. Supp. 1375 [ED Penn, 1976] affd 549 F.2d 795 [3rd Cir, 1977]; Bradford v Edelstein, 467 F. Supp. 1361 [SD Texas, 1979]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alston v. ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP., DIV., ETC.
See also, Kutska v. California State College Department, 410 F.Supp. 48, 49-50, n.1 (W.D.Pa.1976), aff’d, 549 F.2d 795 , C.A. 3, 1977; Macklin, supra, 156 U.S.App.D.C. at page 76 , 478 F.2d at page 986 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Alston v. ALLEGHENY LUDLUM STEEL CORP., ETC.
See also, Kutska v. California State College Department, 410 F.Supp. 48, 49-50, n.1 (W.D.Pa.1976), aff’d 549 F.2d 795 , C.A. 3, 1977; Macklin, supra, 156 U.S.App.D.C. at page 76 , 478 F.2d at page 986 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
McCafferty Ford Co., Appeal Of
76-1896.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Feb 22, 1977.
549 F.2d 795
Published
McCafferty Ford Co., Appeal of
No. 76-1896, 76-1898
United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit
2/22/77
1
E.D.Pa.
AFFIRMED