Legal Opinion
James v. City of St. Petersburg
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided October 3, 1994No. 92-2291PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
COX, Circuit Judge:
Andrea James filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the City of St. Petersburg and various City officials, asserting that a tenant who is a user of water service has a property interest in continued water service protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that terminating such service without prior notice deprives the user of procedural due process. We hold that under applicable law, James did not have a property interest in continued water service protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On October 2, 1990, James,…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Juan A. Marrero and Maria Marrero v. City of Hialeah, Etc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1980
- Geraldine Sterling v. Village of MaywoodCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1978
- DiMassimo v. City of ClearwaterCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1986
- Southpace Properties, Inc. v. Acquisition GroupCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1993
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Hazel Golden v. City of Columbus Cheryl Roberto, Director of Public Utilities for the City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Brian Midkiff Monica Midkiff v. Adams County Regional Water DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
- Brown v. City of BarreDistrict Court, D. Vermont · 2012
- James v. City Of St. PetersburgCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1994
- Golden v. City of ColumbusCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2005
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.