constitutional due process violation in Virginia

2025The term “public hearing” at its core is evocative of the constitutional due process requirement “that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.”9 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976); see, e.g., WLR Foods, Inc. v. Cardosa, 26 9 Since the transactions conducted under Code § 15.2-1800(B) involve the locality’s administration of its private property, the locality’s jus privatum, they involve the public’s inherent right to such property, administered through the locality’s jus publicum, which includes access and use.

2024The Supreme Court of the United States “consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-58 (1974) (“The requirement for some kind of a hearing applies to the taking of private property.”). “[T]he right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not - 16 - involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.” Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v.

2024The Supreme Court of the United States “consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-58 (1974) (“The requirement for some kind of a hearing applies to the taking of private property.”). “[T]he right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not - 16 - involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.” Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v.

2024The Supreme Court of the United States “consistently has held that some form of hearing is required before an individual is finally deprived of a property interest.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-58 (1974) (“The requirement for some kind of a hearing applies to the taking of private property.”). “[T]he right to be heard before being condemned to suffer grievous loss of any kind, even though it may not - 16 - involve the stigma and hardships of a criminal conviction, is a principle basic to our society.” Joint Anti-Fascist Comm. v.

2019Id.; see also Caison v. Commonwealth, 52 Va. App. 423, 434 (2008) (“Although we will not disturb on appeal decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence absent an abuse of the trial court’s discretion, we review de novo whether a particular 2 To the extent that the appellant argues that the circuit court admitted the testimony about the verbal statement for a limited purpose not including whether he allowed Morin to stay overnight in his motel room, it was the appellant’s burden to obtain a clear ruling to that effect from the circuit court.

2015While the first issue involves the elements of a constitutional due process claim, the second involves a question of “aggrieved party” standing, Code § 28.2-1205(F), and the statutory guidelines applicable to the VMRC’s discretionary power to issue permits, Code § 28.2-1205(A). 6 Under settled VAPA law, the circuit court reviews an agency’s action in a manner “equivalent to an appellate court’s role in an appeal from a trial court.” Boone v. Harrison, 52 Va.App. 53, 61 , 660 S.E.2d 704, 708 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2015While the first issue involves the elements of a constitutional due process claim, the second involves a question of “aggrieved party” standing, Code § 28.2-1205(F), and the statutory guidelines applicable to the VMRC’s discretionary power to issue permits, Code § 28.2-1205(A). 6 Under settled VAPA law, the circuit court reviews an agency’s action in a manner “equivalent to an appellate court’s role in an appeal from a trial court.” Boone v. Harrison, 52 Va.App. 53, 61 , 660 S.E.2d 704, 708 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted).

2004Stanley v. City of Norfolk, 218 Va. 504, 506 (1977).