Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
10 Georgia opinions name it 2 courts 1995–2023 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Georgia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Mckinney v. Pategreen2 sentences1997See Thomas, supra. In McKinney , the Eleventh Circuit held that “a procedural due process violation is not complete ‘unless and until the State fails to provide due process.’ [Cit.] In other words, the state may cure a procedural deprivation by providing a later procedural remedy; only when the state refuses to provide a process sufficient to remedy the procedural deprivation does a constitutional violation actionable *709 under section 1983 arise.” McKinney, supra at 1557 . 1996Nonetheless, the deprivation resulting from a failure to have a pre-termination hearing does not ripen into a procedural due process violation unless the state “refuses to make available a means to remedy the deprivation.” McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1563 (11th Cir. 1994). | 2 | 4 |
Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Boardgreen2 sentences2018See Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Bd. , 298 Ga. 675 , 685-687, 784 S.E.2d 392 (2016). 2018See Gregory v. Sexual Offender Registration Review Bd. , 298 Ga. 675 , 685-687, 784 S.E.2d 392 (2016). | 2 | 2 |
Camden County v. Haddockgreen2 sentences2017And under both constitutions, "[t]he focus of the procedural due process analysis *266 is whether the state makes adequate procedures available-not whether the plaintiff takes advantage of those procedures and achieves a successful outcome." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Haddock , 271 Ga. at 665 (1), 523 S.E.2d 291 . 2017And under both constitutions, "[t]he focus of the procedural due process analysis *266 is whether the state makes adequate procedures available-not whether the plaintiff takes advantage of those procedures and achieves a successful outcome." (Citation and punctuation omitted.) Haddock , 271 Ga. at 665 (1), 523 S.E.2d 291 . | 1 | 2 |
Henderson v. Sherringtongreen2 sentences1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an 1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an | 1 | 2 |
Eric Schumacher v. City of Roswellgreen1 sentence2023See Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 344 Ga. App. 135 , 139 ( 809 SE2d 262 ) (2017) (Under both the federal and Georgia Constitutions, “the focus of the procedural due process analysis is whether the state makes adequate procedures available — not whether the plaintiff takes advantage of those procedures and achieves a successful outcome.”) (citations and punctuation omitted); see also Bd. of Commrs. of Effingham County v. Farmer, 228 Ga. App. 819, 823 (1) ( 493 SE2d 21 ) (1997) (writ of certiorari proceeding was adequate judicial remedy precluding § 1983 claim). 9 3. | 1 | 1 |
BD. OF COM'RS OF EFFINGHAM CTY. v. Farmergreen2 sentences2023See Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 344 Ga. App. 135 , 139 ( 809 SE2d 262 ) (2017) (Under both the federal and Georgia Constitutions, “the focus of the procedural due process analysis is whether the state makes adequate procedures available — not whether the plaintiff takes advantage of those procedures and achieves a successful outcome.”) (citations and punctuation omitted); see also Bd. of Commrs. of Effingham County v. Farmer, 228 Ga. App. 819, 823 (1) ( 493 SE2d 21 ) (1997) (writ of certiorari proceeding was adequate judicial remedy precluding § 1983 claim). 9 3. 2023See Schumacher v. City of Roswell, 344 Ga. App. 135 , 139 ( 809 SE2d 262 ) (2017) (Under both the federal and Georgia Constitutions, “the focus of the procedural due process analysis is whether the state makes adequate procedures available — not whether the plaintiff takes advantage of those procedures and achieves a successful outcome.”) (citations and punctuation omitted); see also Bd. of Commrs. of Effingham County v. Farmer, 228 Ga. App. 819, 823 (1) ( 493 SE2d 21 ) (1997) (writ of certiorari proceeding was adequate judicial remedy precluding § 1983 claim). 9 3. | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Chatham Countygreen2 sentences2017See Jones , 223 Ga. App. at 457-458 (3), 477 S.E.2d 889 . 2017See Jones , 223 Ga. App. at 457-458 (3), 477 S.E.2d 889 . | 1 | 1 |
Brewer v. Schachtgreen2 sentences2010See Brewer v. Schacht, 235 Ga. App. 313, 316 (3) ( 509 SE2d 378 ) (1998) (cause of action for deprivation of reputational liberty consists of allegations of “ ‘(1) a false statement (2) of a stigmatizing nature (3) attending a governmental employee’s discharge (4) made public (5) by the governmental employer (6) without a meaningful opportunity for employee name clearing’”). 2010See Brewer v. Schacht, 235 Ga. App. 313, 316 (3) ( 509 SE2d 378 ) (1998) (cause of action for deprivation of reputational liberty consists of allegations of “ ‘(1) a false statement (2) of a stigmatizing nature (3) attending a governmental employee’s discharge (4) made public (5) by the governmental employer (6) without a meaningful opportunity for employee name clearing’”). | 1 | 1 |
Bell v. City of Demopolis, ALgreen1 sentence1997Id.; compare Bell v. City of Demopolis, Ala., 86 F3d 191 (11th Cir.); Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir.); McKinney, supra. (Burch v. Apalachee Community &c. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. Holtgreen1 sentence1997See Thomas, supra. In McKinney , the Eleventh Circuit held that “a procedural due process violation is not complete ‘unless and until the State fails to provide due process.’ [Cit.] In other words, the state may cure a procedural deprivation by providing a later procedural remedy; only when the state refuses to provide a process sufficient to remedy the procedural deprivation does a constitutional violation actionable *709 under section 1983 arise.” McKinney, supra at 1557 . | 1 | 1 |
Atlanta City School District v. Dowlinggreen2 sentences1996See also Atlanta City School Dist. v. Dowling, 266 Ga. 217 ( 466 SE2d 588 ) (1996). 1996See also Atlanta City School Dist. v. Dowling, 266 Ga. 217 ( 466 SE2d 588 ) (1996). | 1 | 1 |
Carey v. Piphusgreen1 sentence1995See Carey v. Piphus, 435 U. S. 247 (98 SC 1042, 55 LE2d 252) (1978); Farrar v. Hobby, 506 U. S__(113 SC 566, 121 LE2d 494) (1992). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Georgia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Narey v. Dean
green
2 sentences1997Id.; compare Bell v. City of Demopolis, Ala., 86 F3d 191 (11th Cir.); Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir.); McKinney, supra. (Burch v. Apalachee Community &c. 1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an | 2 | 1996–1997 |
Turner v. Giles
green
2 sentences1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an 1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an | 2 | 1995–1996 |
Zinermon v. Burch
green
1 sentence1996I. 3 Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113 (110 SC 975, 983, 108 LE2d 100) (1990). 4 McKinney v. Pate, 20 F3d 1550, 1557 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,_U. S.__(115 SC 898, 130 LE2d 783) (1994). 5 Id. at 1563 . 6 See Narey v. Dean, 32 F3d 1521 (11th Cir. 1994). 7 Atlanta City School District v. Dowling, 263 Ga. XXVI (1993) (judgment affirmed without opinion). 8 See Turner v. Giles, 264 Ga. 812 ( 450 SE2d 421 ) (1994) (holding that blind vendor whose state license was terminated without a hearing had no viable section 1983 claim for damages for a procedural due process violation when he was reinstated an | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Parratt v. Taylor
red
2 sentences1995We affirmed, relying on Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (101 SC 1908, 68 LE2d 420) (1981) 1 for the proposition that a governmental actor’s conduct which deprives a plaintiff of liberty or property can give rise to a procedural due process violation only if “available state *690 remedies are not themselves adequate to provide the claimant with redress for the alleged injury.” Henderson, 189 Ga. App. at 499 . 1995In Parratt , a prisoner’s hobby materials were lost as a result of prison officials’ negligence, and the United States Supreme Court held that this deprivation of property could not be the basis for a procedural due process claim because the state provided an adequate remedy for the loss through its state tort claims procedure. 451 U. S. at 544 . | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Hudson v. Palmer
green
1 sentence1995The Parratt rule was extended to intentional but unauthorized acts in Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517 (104 SC 3194, 82 LE2d 393) (1984), in which a prisoner alleged that a guard who did not like him intentionally destroyed property in his cell. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.