Also known as: lawful processes · due process
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A formal means by which a court exercises jurisdiction or compels action in a legal proceeding.
Federal prosecutors charged Latoya Lane with a capital offense after an information was filed directly in district court. Lane moved to dismiss because no grand jury had returned an indictment. The court held that the charging document failed to constitute lawful process and dismissed the case.
Laura Lewis and Luke Latham, an interracial couple, applied for a marriage license in a state that still enforced a statutory prohibition. The clerk refused to issue the license. A federal court later ruled that the refusal rested on unconstitutional process and ordered the license granted.
Layla Lane, a naturalized citizen, was denied a state professional license solely because of her national origin. She sued claiming the denial rested on unlawful process. The court agreed that the state action violated the guarantee of equal protection and directed issuance of the license.
Logan Lane, convicted of a nonviolent offense, faced mandatory sterilization under state law. He challenged the statute as lacking any lawful process. The court struck down the scheme because it violated substantive due process protections for the right to procreate.
After the mother died, state officials removed Lily Lopez's child from the unmarried father without any hearing. The father petitioned for return of the child. The court held that the removal occurred through unlawful process and ordered a hearing to determine parental fitness.
Legacy Motors purchased land intending to build a commercial facility. The village enforced a zoning ordinance that barred the proposed use. Legacy Motors sued, arguing the ordinance operated as unlawful process that deprived it of property without due process. The court upheld the ordinance as a valid exercise of police power.
The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area spans from twelve to fourteen square miles, with the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. It lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way and is traversed east and west by three principal highways and two railroads. Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the village into six use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. Appellee's tract is classified as U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder. Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. The board holds public meetings, keeps minutes of its proceedings, and possesses authority to interpret the ordinance in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, while penalties are prescribed for violations. Ambler Realty Co. filed suit alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleged that unrestricted market value is about $10,000 per acre but limited to residential purposes the value does not exceed $2,500 per acre, that the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue has a value of $150 per front foot if unrestricted but not in excess of $50 per front foot if limited to residential uses, and that the ordinance confiscates and destroys a great part of its value while deterring prospective buyers. The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance. The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.
View caseLawful process requires both proper notice and an opportunity to be heard that satisfies constitutional standards. Notice alone is insufficient if the method of service or the forum's exercise of jurisdiction violates due process limits.
Yes. When process is properly served yet the defendant fails to respond because of excusable neglect in forwarding papers, the court may relieve the party from the judgment upon a timely motion showing mistake or neglect and a meritorious defense.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rules permit a court to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous allegations from a pleading either on motion or on its own initiative, without waiting for a party to act.
Supporting sources
A court may allow remote testimony for good cause in compelling circumstances when appropriate safeguards are in place. Bail restrictions preventing interstate travel can supply the required showing if the transmission preserves the ability to observe demeanor and conduct cross-examination.
Supporting sources