Curtis Ambulance v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs

109 Citing cases

  1. Pickmeup Med. Transp., LLC v. Utah Dep't of Health

    Case No. 2:13-CV-846 TS (D. Utah Nov. 26, 2013)

    U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Jacobs, 927 F.2d at 1115 (citing Curtis Ambulance, Inc. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1987)). [a] property interest protected by the due process clause results from a legitimate claim of entitlement created and defined "by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law."

  2. Grand Design Golf, Ltd. v. Glinstra

    112 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (D. Kan. 2000)   Cited 2 times
    Dismissing plaintiff's federal law claims with prejudice for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)

    In order to state a claim for a due process violation, defendants, acting under color of state law, must have deprived plaintiffs of some "definite liberty or property interest . . . without appropriate process." Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Management, 161 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir. 1998) (quoting Curtis Ambulance v. Shawnee Rd. of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1987)). The Olathe and Flatt defendants move to dismiss plaintiffs' due process claims on the grounds that the allegations in plaintiffs' complaint, if proven, fail to establish any constitutionally protected property interest.

  3. LRL Properties v. Portage Metro Housing Authority

    55 F.3d 1097 (6th Cir. 1995)   Cited 591 times
    Holding that the bulk of a plaintiff's § 1983 claims which were based on discrete acts allegedly occurring more than two years before the plaintiff filed his lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations

    "The process requirement necessary to satisfy fourteenth amendment procedural due process comes into play only after plaintiff has shown that it has a property or liberty interest." Curtis Ambulance of Fla., Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1987). The plaintiffs' claim that they have stated a cognizable liberty interest is premised on their claims of defamation, failure to receive rent increases, defendants' inducing of plaintiffs' tenants to breach their lease agreements, restriction of availability of Section 8 housing at plaintiffs' property, arbitrary and capricious inspections by defendants to harass plaintiffs, and denial to plaintiffs of Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation funds. All of these alleged actions except the last occurred outside of the two-year statute of limitations and therefore cannot be considered.

  4. Trihealth, Inc. v. Board of Com'rs

    347 F. Supp. 2d 548 (S.D. Ohio 2004)   Cited 3 times

    Thus, for this Court to determine whether TriHealth has a constitutionally protected property right, this Court must inquire whether Ohio law limits the County Defendants' discretion in choosing to whom to award a contract, and if so, whether TriHealth had a legitimate claim of entitlement to the contract. See Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of the County of Shawnee, KS, 811 F.2d 1371, 1378 (10th Cir. 1987). Plaintiffs also cite Patuala Elec. Membership Corp. v. Whitworth, 951 F.2d 1238 (11th Cir. 1992) in support of their argument.

  5. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Kan. Dep't of Transp.

    810 F.3d 1161 (10th Cir. 2016)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that governmental action barring the plaintiff's business from supplying certain products for state highway projects did not cause "the requisite harm to [the plaintiff] business as needed to find a violation of its liberty interest" because the plaintiff could still pursue other opportunities

    As with contract bidders, prequalified status does not guarantee aggregate sellers any sales of aggregate or acceptance at the project site. See S. Disposal, Inc. v. Tex. Waste Mgmt., 161 F.3d 1259, 1265 (10th Cir.1998) (“ ‘[A] disappointed bidder has no constitutionally protected property interest’ until it is actually awarded the contract.” (quoting Curtis Ambulance of Fla., Inc. v. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1376–77 (10th Cir.1987))); see also Interior Contractors, 185 F.Supp.2d at 1225. By the same token, a potential supplier has no entitlement to sell its material.

  6. GF Gaming Corp. v. City of Black Hawk

    405 F.3d 876 (10th Cir. 2005)   Cited 59 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conduct that "amounts to nothing more than lobbying of government officials . . . is immune from Sherman Act liability under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine" and "[e]ven if defendants' sole motive for petitioning the [government] officials was to injure competition, the conduct would still be protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine"

    Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed by the district court pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), and this court therefore "must take as true all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint." Curtis Ambulance of Fla., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1987). Accordingly, the factual background in this case will be drawn from plaintiffs' second revised third amended complaint, which is the operative pleading here.

  7. County of Santa Fe v. Pub. Serv. Co.

    311 F.3d 1031 (10th Cir. 2002)   Cited 259 times
    Holding that, to insure substantial justice is accorded to both parties, the court must consider the equities facing both the defendant and the plaintiff

    We also "must indulge all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff." Curtis Ambulance of Fla., Inc. v. Bd. of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1374 (10th Cir. 1987). In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a federal court may only consider facts alleged within the complaint.

  8. Southern Disposal, Inc. v. Texas Waste Mgt.

    161 F.3d 1259 (10th Cir. 1998)   Cited 448 times
    Holding plaintiff had no property interest as a bidder to waste disposal contract because it was never guaranteed the contract

    In order to state a claim for a due process violation, Defendants, acting under color of state law, must have deprived Southern Disposal of some "definite liberty or property interest . . . without appropriate process." See Curtis Ambulance v. Shawnee Bd. of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1987) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70 (1972)). Appellant argues it holds a protected property interest in its contracts existing at the time of the bidding for the new exclusive contract. Valid contracts may constitute a property interest for purposes of due process.

  9. Jacobs, Visconsi, Jacobs v. City of Lawrence

    927 F.2d 1111 (10th Cir. 1991)   Cited 274 times
    Holding that, where state law required the zoning board to consider six enumerated factors, those factors were "insufficient to confer upon the applicant a legitimate claim of entitlement"

    To sustain their cause of action under section 1983, then, appellants must first allege a property interest sufficient to warrant due process protection. Curtis Ambulance, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1375 (10th Cir. 1987). A property interest protected by the due process clause results from a legitimate claim of entitlement created and defined "by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law."

  10. Key Financial Planning Corp v. ITT Life Insurance

    828 F.2d 635 (10th Cir. 1987)   Cited 26 times
    In Key Financial Planning Corp. v. ITT Life Ins. Corp., 828 F.2d 635, 641 (10th Cir. 1987), the Tenth Circuit summarized Westman, stating: "In Westman, we stated that in order for a group boycott to exist, `there must be an agreement among conspirators whose market positions are horizontal to each other. While the competitors need not be at the same market level as the plaintiff, there must be concerted activity between two or more competitors at same market level."

    The district court dismissed the pendent state law claims in this case. That decision cannot be overturned absent an abuse of discretion. Curtis Ambulance of Florida, Inc. v. Board of County Comm'rs, 811 F.2d 1371, 1386 (10th Cir. 1987). The plaintiffs appear to concede that the court properly exercised its discretion if the dismissal of the federal claims is affirmed by this court.