This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2015-09-08 |
BRION, J. |
||||
| The essence of procedural due process is the right to be heard.[172] The procedural due process requirements in an eminent domain case are satisfied if the parties are given the opportunity to present their evidence before the commissioners whose findings (together with the pleadings, evidence of the parties, and the entire record of the case) are reviewed and considered by the expropriation court. It is the parties’ total failure to present evidence on just compensation that renders the trial court’s ruling void. The opportunity to present evidence during the trial remains to be the vital requirement in the observance of due process.[173] | |||||
|
2015-07-20 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The Court has consistently held that the essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.[23] Any seeming defect in its observance is cured by the filing of a motion for reconsideration, and denial of due process cannot be successfully invoked by a party who has had the opportunity to be heard on such motion.[24] What the law prohibits is not the absence of previous notice, but the absolute absence thereof and the lack of opportunity to be heard.[25] | |||||