Christopher B. Propert v. District of Columbia, a Municipal Corporation

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “however weighty the governmental interest may be in a given case, the amount of process required can never be reduced to zero”
• reasoning that municipality “may not . . . act to destroy the car without affording the owner post-towing notice and an opportunity to be heard”
• acknowledging that D.C. had a genuine interest in keeping “junk” vehicles off the streets
• finding that the city’s policy to promptly dispose of unclaimed vehicles deemed “junk” without a “hearing procedure of any kind” was an egregious violation of a vehicle owner’s Due Process rights
• stating the three basic elements to a procedural due process claim as (1) a deprivation, (2) of life, liberty, or property, (3) without due process of law
• “[Although the provision of procedural safeguards sometimes may be postponed, such safeguards must be provided prior to the time that a deprivation becomes final.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).