# McKinney v. Pate > Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · May 5, 1994 · 20 F.3d 1550 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930295 ## Case - **Full name:** Millard McKINNEY v. John PATE, individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Osceola County Board of Commissioners, Jack Shannin, individually and in his official capacity as Development Department Director of Osceola County, and the Osceola County Board of Commissioners, collectively - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **Decided:** May 5, 1994 - **Citations:** 20 F.3d 1550; 1994 WL 171450 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmondson - **Judges:** Anderson, Birch, Black, Carnes, Cox, Dubina, Edmondson, Hatchett, Kravitch, Tjoflat - **Cited by:** 688 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Abrogated in part, on other grounds by County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998). - Negative treatments: 3 - Distinguished by: 2 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930295 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - holding that when the plaintiff was provided with a pretermination hearing, but failed to apply for an available posttermination hearing and chose instead to pursue a § 1983 claim in federal court, the presence of an adequate state posttermination remedy "mandates that . . . n… - concluding that the plaintiffs action asserted claims alleging violations of procedural due process and that “the appropriate remedy in this case is not lost wages and benefits calculated on the basis of McKinney’s remaining working life; rather proper remedies include reinsta… - stating that the second Chevron Oil factor requires that "the application of the old rule in the instant case must not contravene the purpose and operation of the provision being interpreted" and that the third factor requires that the "application of the new rule in the insta… - holding that procedural due process claim, in which the plaintiff alleged that decision-makers in his pre-termination hearing were biased, was barred because the plaintiff did not show that post-termination remedies in Florida courts, which could have ordered a new hearing con… - stating that the second Chevron Oil factor requires that “the appbeation of the old rule in the instant case must not contravene the purpose and operation of the provision being interpreted” and that the third factor requires that the “appbeation of the new rule in the instant… ## Opinion text EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, concurring in judgment: In its application, substantive due process is a puzzling concept. I agree that an allegation of injury resulting from a biased decision maker in a case like this one presents not a substantive due process claim, but a procedural due process claim. I also agree that McKinney is bound by this conclusion. But today’s court opinion speaks of many other things that seem unnecessary to deciding this case. Some of these other things may be important. I would prefer to discuss them when doing so is essential to deciding a concrete case. I concur in the judgment. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6930295. Public record. Not legal advice.