G Cite
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“As distinguished from its procedural cousin ... a substantive due process inquiry focuses on ‘what’ the government has done, as opposed to ‘how and when’ the government did it.”
cited 3× by 1 distinct case ·
“[T]he proper focus must be on the manner in which the state has acted: ‘how and when’ the alleged deprivation was effected.”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie
as distinguished from its procedural cousin ... a substantive due process inquiry focuses on 'what' the government has done, as opposed to 'how and when' the government did it.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Taylor v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
the proper focus must be on the manner in which the state has acted: 'how and when' the alleged deprivation was effected.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lyons v. City of Lewiston
(2×)
we must determine whether defendants reasonably should have comprehended that their specific actions transgressed those 'clearly established' rights.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Nestor Colon Medina & Sucesores Inc. v. Custodio
when a procedural due process claim is advanced, the proper focus must be on the manner in which the state has acted: 'how and when' the alleged deprivation was effected.
discussed
Cited "see"
Mettler Walloon, LLC v. Melrose Township
See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 757 (1st Cir. 1990) (noting that “even bad faith violations of state law are not necessarily tantamount to unconstitutional deprivations of due process”), cert, denied, [498] U.S. [1041], 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Black v. Commonwealth
See Kucharek v. Hanaway, 902 F.2d 513, 517 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Aubuchon v. MASS. BUILD. CODE APPELS BD.
See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 754 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Aubuchon v. Massachusetts ex rel. State Building Code Appeals Board
See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 754 (1st Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Wilfredo Martinez, A/K/A Wilfredo Martinez Rodriguez v. Rafael Colon, A/K/A Rafael Colon Pizarro
(2×)
In mounting this inquiry, courts may neither require that state actors faultlessly anticipate the future trajectory of the law, see Crooker, 5 F.3d at 585 (noting that a state actor is not "expected to carry a crystal ball"), nor permit claims of qualified immunity to turn on the eventual outcome of a hitherto problematic constitutional analysis, see, e.g., Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir.1990) (recognizing that "a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity"); accord Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.…
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Joaquin Osvaldo Gallo-Chamorro
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 , 105 S.Ct. 471 , 83 L.Ed.2d 461 (1984) (that a jury reaches what might be construed as inconsistent verdicts is not an adequate ground for reversal); see United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013 , 1020 n. 12 (11th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991). 7 .
cited
Cited "see"
Supreme Video, Inc. v. Steven Schauz, James Thome, and One or More John Does
See Kucharek v. Hanaway, 902 F.2d 513, 515 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
cited
Cited "see"
Martel v. Fridovich
See Amsden v. Moran 904 F.2d 748, 754 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ann W. McRee Joseph H. Hale
(2×)
See United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013, 1019-20 (11th Cir.1990) (affirming a conviction under section 641 after finding that the government retained sufficient supervision and control over federal funds, which the defendant diverted after the government transferred the funds to Dade County for use in community development projects), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); United States v. Smith, 596 F.2d 662, 664 (5th Cir.1979) (affirming a conviction under section 641 after finding that the government maintained sufficient supervision and control over the funds…
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Ellis McHenry
See United States v. Christoph, 904 F.2d 1036, 1039 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 713 (1991).
examined
Cited "see"
United States v. Ann W. McRee Joseph H. Hale
(4×)
See United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013, 1019-20 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (funds transferred to Dade County that were to be used to fund community development projects remained government property because they were subject to government control), application and cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); United States v. McIntosh, 655 F.2d 80, 84 (5th Cir.1981) (grant transferred to closing attorney by Farmers Home Administration that was to be used to satisfy grantee’s debts remained government property because the government retained control over the use of …
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Robert Franklin Riley
See United States v. Christoph, 904 F.2d 1036, 1039 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 713 (1991). 23 A finding of fact is deemed clearly erroneous when, after consideration of the entirety of the evidence, the reviewing court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.
discussed
Cited "see"
Norman R. Harrington v. R. Christopher Almy, Etc.
(2×)
As we have recently noted “[t]he fact that a violation occurred is not enough to pierce the shield of qualified immunity 'unless it is further demonstrated that [the defendants’] conduct was unreasonable under the applicable standard.’ Davis v. Sherer , 468 U.S. 183, 190 [ 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 ] (1984); accord Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1990) cert. denied [— U.S.-], 111 S.Ct. 713 [ 112 L.Ed.2d 702 ] (1991).” Quintero de Quintero v. Aponte-Roque, 974 F.2d 226, 228 (1st Cir.1992).
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Nineteen Appeals Arising Out of the San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation
See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 753 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); Needleman v. Bohlen, 602 F.2d 1, 5 (1st Cir.1979).
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Ira Silverman (90-3205) Morris G. Woodard (90-5816) and Gary Caton (90-5733/91-6506)
(2×)
See United States v. Christoph, 904 F.2d 1036 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Quintero de Quintero v. Roque
The fact that a violation occurred is not enough to pierce the shield of qualified immunity "unless it is further demonstrated that [the defendants'] conduct was unreasonable under the applicable standard." Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 (1984); accord _____ _______ ______ Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir. 1990), cert. denied, ______ _____ _____ ______ 111 S. Ct. 713 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Dinhora Quintero De Quintero v. Awilda Aponte-Roque
The fact that a violation occurred is not enough to pierce the shield of qualified immunity “unless it is further demonstrated that [the defendants’] conduct was unreasonable under the applicable standard.” Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 , 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 (1984); accord Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
National Paint & Coatings Ass'n v. City of Chicago
See Kucharek v. Hanaway, 902 F.2d 513, 516 (7th Cir.1990) (plaintiffs had standing to challenge new obscenity statute based on a showing that they “want to sell materials which the statute actually or arguably prohibits and that they are deterred from doing so by a reasonable fear of prosecution ), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see"
Pfz Properties, Inc. v. Rene Alberto Rodriguez, Etc.
(2×)
See Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 757 (1st Cir.1990) (noting that "even bad faith violations of state law are not necessarily tantamount to unconstitutional deprivations of due process"), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zahra v. Town Of Southold
We will assume for purposes of our analysis that Zahra's entitlement to substantive due process based on the building permit was "clearly established." See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 ("The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a 'clearly established right' to the permits at issue."); see also Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.1990) (defendants conceded that revocation of land surveying license constituted deprivation of a property interest sufficient to clearly establish entitlement to due process), cert. den…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Zahra v. Town of Southold
We will assume for purposes of our analysis that Zahra’s entitlement to substantive due process based on the building permit was “clearly established.” See Natale, 927 F.2d at 105 (“The threshold issue in determining the applicability of [the] qualified immunity defense is whether [the plaintiffs] had a ‘clearly established right’ to the permits at issue.”); see also Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.1990) (defendants conceded that revocation of land surveying license constituted deprivation of a property interest sufficient to clearly establish entitlement to due proce…
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Creamer v. Sceviour
Sullivan v. Carrick, 888 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1989); see also Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1990).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Carmen Nereida-Gonzalez v. Cirilo Tirado-Delgado
See, e.g., Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 749 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Hansen v. Lamontagne
See id.; see also Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 751 (1st Cir.1990), ce rt. denied, 498 U.S. 1041 , 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991). 2 “Because qualified immunity does not address the substantive viability of a section 1983 claim, but rather the objective reasonableness of a defendant’s actions, a plaintiff who is entitled to prevail on the merits is not necessarily entitled to prevail on the issue of qualified immunity.” Collins v. Marina-Martinez, 894 F.2d 474, 478 (1st Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Maguire v. Municipality of Old Orchard Beach
See, e.g., Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.1990) (“Where persons are deprived of property interests, it has long been ‘clearly established’ that due process safeguards must be afforded.”), ce rt. denied, — U.S.-, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991); Brennan, 888 F.2d at 193 (“The fourth amendment reaches stops and detentions short of arrest....
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Lynnette Harris and Leigh Ann Conley
(2×)
See id., at 363 ; see also Kucharek v. Hanaway, 902 F.2d 513, 518 (7th Cir.1990), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Ramonita Santiago De Castro v. Victor Morales Medina
See also Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 754 (1st Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991) (referring to the “circumscribed precincts patrolled by substantive due process”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
United States v. Robert L. Alexander
See also United States v. Kaden, 819 F.2d 813 (7th Cir.1987), United States v. Lucas, 597 F.2d 243 (10th Cir.1979) (per curiam), and United States v. Hoye, 548 F.2d 1271, 1273 (6th Cir.1977) (per curiam), all cited in United States v. Christoph, 904 F.2d 1036, 1039-40 (6th Cir.1990), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1991).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
John L. Kelly v. United States
(2×)
See, e.g., Amsden v. Moran, 904 F.2d 748, 752 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 111 S.Ct. 713 , 112 L.Ed.2d 702 (1990); Garside v. Osco Drug, Inc., 895 F.2d 46, 48 (1st Cir.1990).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
MIAMI CENTER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK
v.
BANK OF NEW YORK
No. 90-676.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Jan 7, 1991.
111 S. Ct. 713
The motion of petitioners to defer consideration of the petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.