Spinelli v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that “the City had sufficient cause to take prompt action to address the security infractions” at the gun store
• holding that plaintiff was deprived of due process when her business license was suspended for 58 days; post-deprivation hearing was not meaningful where suspension resulted in plaintiff’s business being unable to operate for about two months
• noting that “a person does not have a protected interest in a possible future business license” (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that due process requires notice and opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• noting that “a person does not have a protected interest in a possible future business license” because it 4 “involves a purely speculative property interest” (alteration omitted) citation omitted
• holding warrantless search authority created by section 4-06(a)(3) did not violate the Fourth Amendment because \an effective inspection of a gun dealer's premises requires that searches be unannounced in order to discover potential security infractions\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).