Issue: Does section 700.160 of the California Code of Civil Procedure violate procedural due process?
|Area of Law:||Constitutional Law, Litigation & Procedure|
|Keywords:||Procedural due process rights; Violation; California Code of Civil Procedure|
|Cited Cases:||51 Cal. App. 4th 1211; 20 Cal. 4th 371; 34 Cal. App. 3d 560; 488 P.2d 13; 70 Cal. App. 4th 1392; 5 Cal. 3d 536; 84 Cal. Rptr. 2d 466; 110 Cal. Rptr. 296; 126 Cal. Rptr. 376; 138 Cal. Rptr. 811; 59 Cal. Rptr. 2d 652; 121 Cal. Rptr. 56; 96 Cal. Rptr. 709; 395 U.S. 337; 46 Cal. App. 3d 346; 975 P.2d 663; 266 U.S. 285; 407 U.S. 67; 407 U.S. 924|
|Cited Statutes:||Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 700.010; § 700.140; § 700.160(c); Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 700.160(a) ;|
Procedural due process consists primarily of a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard. In re Zachary D., 70 Cal. App. 4th 1392, 1399, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d 407, 411 (1999). “Its essence is an emphasis on fairness in the particular procedure employed.” Id. at 1399, 83 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 411.
The Supreme Court of California has stated that the extent to which procedural due process is available
depends on a weighing of private and governmental interests involved. The required procedural safeguards are those that will, without unduly burdening the government, maximize the accuracy of the resulting decision and respect the dignity of the individual subjected to the decisionmaking process. Specifically, determination of the dictates of due process generally requires consideration of four factors: the private interest that will be affected by the individual action; the risk of an erroneous deprivation of this interest through the procedures used and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute safeguards; the dignitary interest of informing individuals of the nature, grounds, and consequences of the action and of enabling them to present their side of the story before a responsible governmental official; and the government interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirements would entail.
Oberholzer v. Commission on Judicial Performance, 20 Cal. 4th 371, 390-91, 975 […]