Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.
This text of 498 F.2d 365 (Brantley v. Union Bank & Trust Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
498 F.2d 365, 14 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. (West) 1471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brantley-v-union-bank-trust-co-ca5-1974.