ANDREW CATAPANO CO., INC., ET AL.

v.

NEW YORK CITY FINANCE ADMINISTRATION

Citator

Cited By

• Ross v. Horn, 598 F.2d 1312 (3d Cir. 1979)
  …received notice of the proposed recoupment and the reasons therefor, they had thirty days to ask for reconsideration of [*1320] a “waiver” under Section 204(b). In Graves v. Meystrik, 425 F.Supp. 40 (E.D.Mo.) (3 judge court), aff’d without opinion, 431 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2164, 53 L.Ed.2d 220 (1977), Missouri’s unemployment insurance program procedures under which eligibility was determined on a week-by-week basis were upheld. The three-judge court emphasized that “the risk of erroneous deprivation of benef…
• Robbins v. United States R.R. Ret. Bd., 594 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1979)
  …s since it is unlikely that railroad unemployment beneficiaries are any needier than disability beneficiaries.1 But the same conclusion is also dictated by the Supreme Court’s summary affirmance of Graves v. Meystrik, 425 F.Supp. 40 (E.D.Mo.), aff’d 431 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2164, 53 L.Ed.2d 220 (1977). There it was held that the due process clause did not require Missouri to afford pretermination hearings to unemployment benefit claimants. Although Graves involves a state program, in its essential elements…
• Berg v. Shearer, 755 F.2d 1343 (8th Cir. 1985)
  …by the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment. See, e.g., Ross v. Horn, 598 F. 2d 1312, 1317-18 (3d Cir.1979), cert. denied, 448 U.S. 906, 100 S.Ct. 3048, 65 L.Ed.2d 1136 (1980); Graves v. Meystrik, 425 F.Supp. 40, 47 (E.D.Mo.), aff'd, 431 U.S. 910, 97 S.Ct. 2164, 53 L.Ed.2d 220 (1977); cf. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571-72, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705-07, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (“[T]he [*1346] property interests protected by procedural due process extend well beyond actu…