Bogart v. Chapell

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• recognizing that in order to demonstrate that the appellee “had notice of [an] issue and the opportunity to fully brief it,” the appellant “needs to address the merits of a particular issue in her opening brief” (emphasis added)
• noting that predeprivation process is generally not required where the action at issue is “unforeseeable”
• stating that the “fundamental requirement of due process is the □ opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a.meaningful manner”
• noting that plaintiff “possessed viable state causes of action against [a state defendant] for negligence and conversion/trespass to chattels” after state euthanized plaintiffs dogs and cats
• noting that predeprivation process is not constitutionally required when impracticable
• affirming district court decision that “pointed to Defendants’ concession that [Plaintiff] possessed viable state causes of action against them”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).