State Ex Rel. Miller v. Smokers Warehouse Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that where the plaintiffs do not clearly identify the nature of their due process claim, “we assume it is a substantive due process argument because they do not discuss any notice or hearing deficiencies”
• holding that where the plaintiffs do not clearly identify the nature of their due process claim, “we assume it is a substantive due process argument because they do not discuss any notice or hearing deficiencies”
• concluding defendants asserted substantive due process claim because “they do not discuss any notice or hearing deficiencies”
• concluding defendants asserted substantive due process claim because “they do not discuss any notice or hearing deficiencies”
• stating that substantive due process “ ‘is reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or property rights’ ” (quoting Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of W. Des Moines, 636 N.W.2d 255, 265 (Iowa 2001))
• stating that substantive due process “ ‘is reserved for the most egregious governmental abuses against liberty or property rights’ ” (quoting Blumenthal Inv. Trusts v. City of W. Des Moines, 636 N.W.2d 255, 265 (Iowa 2001))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).