MCKAY

v.

MCINNES ET AL.

Citator

Cited By (13 total)

• Unique Caterers, Inc. v. Rudy's Farm Co., 338 So. 2d 1067 (Fla. 1976)
  …process of law. For many years the commercial statutes of the states were thought to be unassailable by due process attacks. Consistent with this view the Supreme Court of the United States upheld prejudgment attachment statutes. McKay v. McInnes, 279 U.S. 820, 49 S.Ct. 344, 73 L.Ed. 975 (1929); Coffin Bros. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29, 48 S.Ct. 422, 72 L.Ed. 768 (1928); Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94, 41 S.Ct. 433, 65 L.Ed. 837 (1921). But recently the concepts of due process have been expanded by the United…
• Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (U.S. 1981)
  …r of the Office of Price Administration to issue rent control orders without providing a hearing to landlords before the order or regulation fixing rents became effective. See also Corn Exchange Bank v. Coler, 280 U. S. 218 (1930); McKay v. McInnes, 279 U. S. 820 (1929); Coffin Brothers & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U. S. 29 (1928); and Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94 (1921). These cases recognize that either the necessity of quick action by the State or the impracticality of providing any meaningful predeprivation…
• Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67 (U.S. 1972)
  …st basic and important public interest. Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U. S. 94. It is much less clear what .interests were involved in the third case, decided with an unexplicated per curiam opinion simply ’ citing Coffin Bros. and Ownbey, McKay v. McInnes, 279 U. S. 820. As far as essential procedural due process doctrine goés, McKay cannot stand for any more than was established in the Coffin Bros, and Ownbey casés ori which it relied completely. See Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., supra, at 340; id., at 344 (Ha…

Authorities Cited

• Ownbey v. Morgan, 256 U.S. 94 (U.S. 1921)
• Coffin Bros. & Co. v. Bennett, 277 U.S. 29 (U.S. 1928)