Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Mackey Vs. Montrym

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 25, 1979

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 10 linked 56 unlinked
Show
  1. Dixon Vs. Love US Supreme Court · May 16, 1977
  2. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  3. Addington Vs. Texas US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1979
  4. Fuentes Vs. Shevin US Supreme Court · Jun 12, 1972
  5. Boddie Vs. Connecticut US Supreme Court · Mar 02, 1971
  6. Bell Vs. Burson US Supreme Court · May 24, 1971
  7. Stanley Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1972
  8. Fusari Vs. Steinberg US Supreme Court · Jan 14, 1975
  9. Barry Vs. Barchi US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1979
  10. GersteIn Vs. Pugh US Supreme Court · Feb 18, 1975
  11. U.S. 1 (1979) U.S. Supreme Court Mackey v. Montrym
    Search
  12. U.S. 1 (1979) Mackey v. Montrym
    Search
  13. The Massachusetts statute is not void on its face as violative of the Due Process Clause. Cf. Dixon v. Love
    Search
  14. as the administrative and fiscal burdens, if any, that would result from the substitute procedures sought. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  15. the three-judge District Court granted Montrym's motion. Relying principally on this Court's decision in Bell v. Burson
    Search
  16. enforcing the statute, and directed him to return the driver's licenses of the plaintiff class members. Montrym v. Panora
    Search
  17. Court for a stay and modification of its judgment, which motions were denied. After release of our opinion in Dixon v. Love
    Search
  18. the Page 443 U. S. 10 dissenting judge thought Love controlled. Montrym v. Panora
    Search
  19. We noted probable jurisdiction following the submission of supplemental briefs by the parties. Sub nom. Panora v. Montrym
    Search
  20. before suspension of a license. 429 F.Supp. at 398-400. Later, the court further held that our decision in Dixon v. Love
    Search
  21. Illinois scheme only after a driver had been suspended and had demonstrated his eligibility for such relief. See Dixon v. Love
    Search
  22. interest is an important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the private interest involved. Fusari v. Steinberg
    Search
  23. U. S. 13 Because a primary function of legal process is to minimize the risk of erroneous decisions, Greenholtz v. Nebraska
    Search
  24. that all governmental decisionmaking comply with standards that assure perfect, error-free determinations. Greenholtz v. Nebraska
    Search
  25. facts justifying the official action are as a responsible governmental official warrants them to be. See, e.g., Barry v. Barchi
    Search
  26. of any evidentiary hearing necessary to resolve questions of credibility or conflicts in the evidence. Cf. Barry v. Barchi
    Search
  27. has in preserving the safety of its public highways, standing alone, fully distinguishes this case from Bell v. Burson
    Search
  28. North American Storage Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  29. of hearings sought, and therefore impose a substantial fiscal and administrative burden on the Commonwealth. Dixon v. Love
    Search
  30. Clause applies to a state's suspension or revocation of a driver's license is clear from our decisions in Dixon v. Love
    Search
  31. U. S. 105 , 431 U. S. 112 (1977), and Bell v. Burson
    Search
  32. this penalty without first affording the driver an opportunity to be heard. A Our decisions in Bell v. Burson
    Search
  33. U. S. 535 , and Dixon v. Love
    Search
  34. and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before the State acts finally to deprive a person of his property. Mullane v. Central
    Search
  35. Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft
    Search
  36. U. S. 645 , 405 U. S. 656 . Cf. Memphis Light, Gas Water Div. v. Craft
    Search
  37. requirement of some kind of hearing before a final deprivation takes effect is all the more important. Thus, in Bell v. Burson
    Search
  38. nature of the case, the interests affected, and the prompt availability of adequate postdeprivation procedures. Boddie v. Connecticut
    Search
  39. Page 443 U. S. 22 evidentiary hearing on a critical issue is not constitutionally sufficient. Compare Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  40. Bell v. Burson
    Search
  41. supra. The case of Dixon v. Love
    Search
  42. no broad exception to the normal presumption in favor of a prior hearing. See Memphis Light, Gas Water Div. v. Craft
    Search
  43. charge against him. Thus, there was clearly a significant factual dispute in this case. That dispute, as in Bell v. Burson
    Search
  44. of liberty based upon ex parte probable cause determinations by the police are, of course, not unusual, Gerstein v. Pugh
    Search
  45. affidavits to determine whether arrest or search warrants should issue are likewise commonly made. E.g., Aguilar v. Texas
    Search
  46. subject to adjudicative factfinding, and one that plainly involves issues of credibility and veracity. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  47. the suspension itself effects a final deprivation of property that no subsequent proceeding can restore. Cf. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  48. which that interest will be frustrated by the delay necessitated by a prior hearing. E.g., North American Storage Co. v. Chicago
    Search
  49. U.S. Supreme Court Mackey v. Montrym
    Search
  50. of the Due Process Clause. Cf. Dixon v. Love
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial