Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.

498 F.2d 365, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1471
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided August 5, 1974·No. Nos. 73-3625, 73-3631·Published·Cited by 8 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellants in this ease seek to challenge the constitutionality of §§ 9-503, 9-504, Title 7A of the Alabama Code (§§ 9-503, 9-504 of the Uniform Commercial Code) on due process grounds.1 These statutes permit limited peaceful self-help repossession without prior notice or hearing by a private par[366]*366ty acting under authority of a private agreement.

Our decision in this case is squarely controlled by our recent decision in James v. Pinnix, 495 F.2d 206, p. 207, n. 5a [1974] in which we found such statutes to be free from Federal due process scrutiny for lack of requisite state action. The judgments of the district court dismissing the appellants’ complaints were correct.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 498 F.2d 365, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1471 (5th Cir. 1974).

498 F.2d 365 (Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Interfirst Bank, Dallas, Texas v. Hanson
395 N.W.2d 857 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1986)
Penney v. First National Bank of Boston
433 N.E.2d 901 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1982)
Jacobs v. Huie
447 F. Supp. 478 (N.D. Texas, 1976)
Virdie L. Smith v. Brookshire Brothers, Inc.
519 F.2d 93 (Fifth Circuit, 1975)
Leon Reyes Calderon v. United Furniture Company
505 F.2d 950 (Fifth Circuit, 1974)