Bostic v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement Division
Alaska Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
FABE, Justice.
I. INTRODUCTION
Procedural due process demands that a party affected by government action be given notice and an opportunity to be heard before being deprived of a property interest. In this case, the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) failed to afford either of these aspects of due process to Robert J. Bostic when deciding the amount of his child support obligation. Because Bostic was deprived of his right to a full and fair opportunity to present evidence of his actual income, we reverse and remand for such a hearing.
II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
While Robert J. Bostic…
2Cases cited21 opinions
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
- Fuentes v. ShevinSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Guin v. HaAlaska Supreme Court · 1979
- Kelly v. ZamarelloAlaska Supreme Court · 1971
16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by16 opinions
- Heustess v. Kelley-HeustessAlaska Supreme Court · 2011
- Nunley v. State, Department of Revenue, Child Support Enforcement DivisionAlaska Supreme Court · 2004
- Gottstein v. State, Department of Natural ResourcesAlaska Supreme Court · 2010
- Schikora v. State, Department of RevenueAlaska Supreme Court · 2000
- Hobbs Ex Rel. Hobbs v. ZendermanDistrict Court, D. New Mexico · 2008
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.