104:
83:
rights than would be available under procedural due process. Thus, when the plaintiff's professional association had clearly given him the benefit of far more procedural protections than he would have been entitled to from any government entity, he had received the benefit of fair procedure and had
66:
was found liable for $ 1,131,000 for arbitrarily denying a small medical clinic admission to its preferred provider network. But the right of fair procedure only applies where the conduct of the challenged private entity would destroy the plaintiff's right to practice a lawful trade or profession.
50:
companies), due to their overwhelming economic power within certain fields, cannot arbitrarily expel members or employees or deny persons admission for no logical reason; they are obligated to provide a rudimentary form of procedural
87:
In the US, the existence of a separate doctrine of fair procedure for private actors is necessary because due process generally controls only decisions taken by state actors. In contrast, the broader UK doctrine of
78:
Another limitation, of course, is that although the right of fair procedure (if applicable) clearly requires something slightly less than procedural due process, it does not require the affected party to be afforded
55:(in the form of notice and a hearing). It is contrasted against due process in that it applies to private actors, while due process normally applies only to
63:
27:
35:
219:
75:, the conduct of the guilds that determine eligibility for the Oscars is not subject to fair procedure.
31:
117:
89:
67:
Because it is possible (though slightly more difficult) to find gainful employment in the
62:
Damages for violating the right of fair procedure can be substantial. For example, the
68:
213:
72:
188:
172:
156:
140:
103:
56:
52:
39:
109:
99:
23:
47:
43:
26:
doctrine that arises from a line of groundbreaking decisions of the
84:
no cause of action for the mildly adverse action that resulted.
30:
dating back to the 1880s. Certain types of private
153:Palm Medical Group, Inc. v. State Comp. Ins. Fund
92:applies to both public and private entities.
8:
71:industry without being the holder of an
129:
7:
137:Potvin v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
14:
64:State Compensation Insurance Fund
102:
169:Yari v. Producers Guild of Am.
1:
28:Supreme Court of California
236:
36:professional associations
189:165 Cal. App. 4th 315
173:161 Cal. App. 4th 172
157:161 Cal. App. 4th 206
201:Abbott v. Sullivan
118:Procedural justice
185:Dougherty v. Haag
227:
204:
198:
192:
182:
176:
166:
160:
150:
144:
141:22 Cal. 4th 1060
134:
112:
107:
106:
235:
234:
230:
229:
228:
226:
225:
224:
210:
209:
208:
207:
199:
195:
183:
179:
167:
163:
151:
147:
135:
131:
126:
108:
101:
98:
90:natural justice
17:
12:
11:
5:
233:
231:
223:
222:
220:California law
212:
211:
206:
205:
193:
177:
161:
145:
128:
127:
125:
122:
121:
120:
114:
113:
97:
94:
69:motion picture
20:Fair procedure
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
232:
221:
218:
217:
215:
202:
197:
194:
190:
186:
181:
178:
174:
170:
165:
162:
158:
154:
149:
146:
142:
138:
133:
130:
123:
119:
116:
115:
111:
105:
100:
95:
93:
91:
85:
82:
76:
74:
73:Academy Award
70:
65:
60:
58:
54:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
21:
200:
196:
184:
180:
168:
164:
152:
148:
136:
132:
86:
80:
77:
61:
57:state actors
34:(especially
19:
18:
16:A common law
203:1 K.B. 189.
53:due process
124:References
110:Law portal
24:common law
48:insurance
44:hospitals
214:Category
96:See also
191:(2008).
175:(2008).
159:(2008).
143:(2000).
46:, and
40:unions
32:actors
22:is a
81:more
59:.
216::
187:,
171:,
155:,
139:,
42:,
38:,
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
