Santana v. City of Tulsa

How courts have described this case

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

• holding “that as long as procedural due process standards are met and no unreasonable municipal actions are shown, a nuisance abatement action does not violate the Fourth Amendment”
• rejecting application of Fourth Amendment warrant requirement when procedural due process met and no other unreasonable government action
• seeking damages for deprivation of due process after defendant confiscated plaintiffs property
• availability of recourse to constitutionally sufficient administrative procedure satisfies due process requirements if complainant declines or fails to take advantage of procedure
• plaintiff cannot create procedural due process claim by ignoring established procedures such as administrative appeal
• The fundamental protections provided by procedural due process are notice and an opportunity to be heard and “meaningfully participate.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).