Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co.
- Decided
- March 2, 1982
- Docket
- 80-5950
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,744 timesOverruled in part (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part (not yet verified) · (PS) Dewey v. Regents of University of California
What later courts said
- holding that a cause of action is a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause — Jane Doe, a Minor Child, by Next Friend, Leslie G. Fein v. District of Columbia (1996)
- holding that automatic dismissal of claims where agency failed to take timely action within statutory period violates due process — (untitled) (1999)
- holding that Parratt “was not designed to reach ... a situation” where the deprivation resulted from an established state procedure — Alexandre v. Cortes (1998)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court. [†] The issue in this case is whether a State may terminate a complainant’s cause of action because a state official, for reasons beyond the complainant’s control, failed to comply with a statutorily mandated procedure.
I
A
Statutes cited
Cite this
Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422 (1982)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.