Law Commons^™

Due Process As Choice Of Law: A Study In The History Of A Judicial Doctrine, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

This Article argues that procedural due process can be understood as a choice-of-law doctrine. Many procedural due process cases require courts to choose between a procedural regime characteristic of the common law - personal notice, oral hearing, neutral judge, and jury trial - and summary procedures employed in administrative agencies.

This way of thinking about procedural due process is at odds with the current balancing test associated with the Supreme Court’s opinion in Mathews v. Eldridge. This Article aims to show, however, that it is consistent with case law over a much longer period, indeed, most of American history. It …

Procedural Due Process Claims, Erwin Chemerinsky

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sua Sponte Actions In The Appellate Courts: The "Gorilla Rule" Revisited, Ronald J. Offenkrantz, Aaron S. Lichter

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

Procedural Due Process Requirements In Bankruptcy Cases, Bryant Churbuck

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees that an individual will not be deprived “of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” In the context of bankruptcy, procedural due process requirements are especially important because although bankruptcy tries to ensure that rights that exist outside of bankruptcy are maintained in bankruptcy, title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) or other federal laws may require a different result. Given that the rights of an individual can be altered in bankruptcy proceedings, the adequacy of notice of the bankruptcy proceeding is of great importance. …

Insult To Injury: A Constitutional Challenge To Rhode Island's Most Colorful Shaming, Breegan Semonelli

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Secret Jurisdiction, Cassandra Burke Robertson, Irina D. Manta

Faculty Publications

So-called “confidentiality creep” after the events of 9/11 has given rise to travel restrictions that lack constitutionality and do nothing to improve airline security. The executive branch’s procedures for imposing such restrictions rely on several layers of secrecy: a secret standard for inclusion on the no-fly list, secret procedures for nominating individuals to the list, and secret evidence to support that decision. This combination results in an overall system we call “secret jurisdiction,” in which individuals wanting to challenge their inclusion on the list are unable to learn the specific evidence against them, the substantive standard for their inclusion on …