Legal Opinion
Edwin Dean Seidman, on Behalf of Himself, and a Class of All Persons Similarly Situated v. City of Beverly Hills and Tom John Automotive, Inc.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided April 25, 1986No. 85-6273PublishedCited by 52 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL
Edwin Dean Seidman filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City of Beverly Hills and Tom John Automotive, Inc., claiming the towing and impoundment of his automobile for expired registration without notice of opportunity for a post-seizure hearing violated his right of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The district court denied Seidman’s motion for certification of a class consisting of all persons whose vehicles had been impounded in the previous three years without receiving notice of opportunity for a hearing.
Subsequently, Seidman settled his…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Coopers & Lybrand v. LivesaySupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Milton Lecompte v. Mr. Chip, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1976
- Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- County of Los Angeles v. JordanSupreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Charles L. JORDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Defendant-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by52 opinions
- Concha v. LondonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Lolli v. County of OrangeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2003
- Wickland Oil Terminals, a California Corporation v. Asarco, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation, and State Lands Commission of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Unioil, Inc. v. E.F. Hutton & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Muro v. Target Corp.Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2009
47 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.