federal due process clause in Florida

2006A year later, in Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Serv. of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal due process clause does not require appointed counsel in every state-initiated termination of parental rights proceeding.

2006A year later, in Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Serv. of Durham County, N.C., 452 U.S. 18 , 101 S.Ct. 2153 , 68 L.Ed.2d 640 (1981), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal due process clause does not require appointed counsel in every state-initiated termination of parental rights proceeding.

2019Ed. 2d 627 (1981) (noting the federal due process clause ordinarily guarantees an evidentiary hearing to a defendant in a paternity action); Walters v. Petgrave, 248 So. 3d 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2018) (reversing a final judgment establishing paternity, timesharing, and child support where the mother was denied her due process rights by being precluded from presenting her case-in-chief at the final hearing).

2016This federal due process clause “minimum contacts” inquiry “asks whether the non-resident’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ” See Balboa v. Assante, 958 So.2d 578, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 287 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)).

2016This federal due process clause “minimum contacts” inquiry “asks whether the non-resident’s ‘conduct and connection with the forum State are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.’ ” See Balboa v. Assante, 958 So.2d 578, 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (quoting World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 287 , 100 S.Ct. 559 , 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980)).

2010In Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989), this Court recognized that the federal due process analysis is not built into Florida’s long-arm statute: “The mere proof of any one of the several circumstances enumerated in section 48.193 as the basis for obtaining jurisdiction of nonresidents does not automatically satisfy the due process requirement of minimum contacts.” Id. at 502 .

2010In Venetian Salami Co. v. Parthenais, 554 So.2d 499 (Fla.1989), this Court recognized that the federal due process analysis is not built into Florida’s long-arm statute: “The mere proof of any one of the several circumstances enumerated in section 48.193 as the basis for obtaining jurisdiction of nonresidents does not automatically satisfy the due process requirement of minimum contacts.” Id. at 502 .

2005Consequently, the Florida Legislature's authority to determine the extent and character of notice to be accorded a property owner before his or her property is sold for nonpayment of taxes is subject to the federal due process requirement that the notice be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Dawson v. Saada, 608 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla.1992), quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

2005Consequently, the Florida Legislature's authority to determine the extent and character of notice to be accorded a property owner before his or her property is sold for nonpayment of taxes is subject to the federal due process requirement that the notice be "reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." Dawson v. Saada, 608 So.2d 806, 808 (Fla.1992), quoting Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 , 70 S.Ct. 652 , 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950).

2002This body of law is premised on the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), that defamation by the government, standing alone, does not constitute a deprivation of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.

2002This body of law is premised on the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 , 96 S.Ct. 1155 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976), that defamation by the government, standing alone, does not constitute a deprivation of liberty or property under the Fourteenth Amendment.

1993In deciding Glosson , this Court rejected the federal court's narrow application of the federal due process defense. [3] Id. *465 This Court also cited opinions from two other states for the proposition that the courts could use the due process defense to overturn criminal convictions as a check against outrageous police conduct.

1993However, the stipulation is clear that the manufacture of the crack cocaine was pursuant to proper procedures and was approved by Sheriff Nick Navarro. [2] Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution reads in pertinent part: Due Process. — No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law... . [3] In State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla. 1985), this Court noted that the federal courts have been reluctant to allow the federal due process defense.

1993State v. Hohensee, 650 S.W.2d 268 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982) (reversing a predisposed defendant's conviction for burglary because the police violated state due process rights in sponsoring and operating a burglary in which the defendant acted as a lookout); People v. Isaacson, 44 N.Y.2d 511 , 406 N.Y.S.2d 714 , 378 N.E.2d 78 (N.Y. 1978) (reversing a predisposed defendant's conviction for drug sales because police misconduct and trickery violated state due process rights).

1984In ASARCO, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 458 U.S. 307 , 102 S.Ct. 3103 , 73 L.Ed.2d 787 (1982), the Court held that the inclusion of out-of-state income from intangibles in a corporation's tax base and the use of Idaho's similar three-factor formula method of apportionment absent a showing of a unitary business violates the federal due process clause.

1984In ASARCO, Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Commission, 458 U.S. 307 , 102 S.Ct. 3103 , 73 L.Ed.2d 787 (1982), the Court held that the inclusion of out-of-state income from intangibles in a corporation's tax base and the use of Idaho's similar three-factor formula method of apportionment absent a showing of a unitary business violates the federal due process clause.