Skip to main content
Please enter a legal issue and/or a location
Begin typing to search, use arrow keys to navigate, use enter to select

Find a Lawyer

More Options

Property Interest in Plaintiff's $10 City Pool Token?

By FindLaw Staff on February 16, 2010 | Last updated on March 21, 2019

In Kennedy v. City of Cincinnati, No. 09-3089, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit faced a challenge to plaintiff's contention that his rights were violated under the Due Process Clause when he was denied access to a public pool and other public recreational areas within the city.

As the Court stated: "Any competent government official, particularly a police officer, should have realized that he cannot deprive a person, who has not committed a crime or violated some regulation, nor was likely to do so, of access to public grounds without due process of law."

Although, the Court held that plaintiff did not have a protectable property interest in his $10 city pool token, the judgment of the district court is reversed as, he clearly established constitutionally-protected liberty interest not to be banned from all city recreational property without procedural due process. 

Related Resources:

You Don’t Have To Solve This on Your Own – Get a Lawyer’s Help

Meeting with a lawyer can help you understand your options and how to best protect your rights. Visit our attorney directory to find a lawyer near you who can help.

Or contact an attorney near you:
Copied to clipboard