Legal Opinion
Mohilef v. Janovici
California Court of Appeal
Decided November 27, 1996No. B096420PublishedCited by 33 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MASTERSON, J.
This case presents the principal question of whether, in an administrative proceeding brought by a municipality to abate a public nuisance, the due process clauses of the state and federal Constitutions require that the offending property owner receive a full, judicial-type hearing.
We hold that due process is satisfied as long as the property owner receives adequate notice of the nature of the alleged nuisance and a meaningful opportunity to respond to the charges against him. It is not necessary that he receive the full panoply of procedural protections accorded in a…
2Cases cited71 opinions
- Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Hannah v. LarcheSupreme Court of the United States · 1960
- Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.California Supreme Court · 1994
66 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by33 opinions
- Today's Fresh Start, Inc. v. Los Angeles County Office of EducationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
- JKH Enterprises, Inc. v. Department of Industrial RelationsCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2006
- Kazensky v. City of MercedCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1998
- Southern California Underground Contractors, Inc. v. City of San DiegoCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- Bostean v. Los Angeles Unified School Dist.California Court of Appeal · 1998
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.