Opinion ID: 2109124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: General Due Process Requirements

Text: We first turn to Barnett's contention that the formal hearing, conducted according to § 3.2c of the city's personnel manual, violated his procedural due process rights. We note that the city does not challenge Barnett's claim that he was entitled to procedural due process during this proceeding. Instead, what is generally at issue in this case is whether the procedures afforded Barnett satisfied due process. [5-7] We have stated that the due process requirements of Nebraska's Constitution are similar to those of the federal Constitution. Hass v. Neth, 265 Neb. 321, 657 N.W.2d 11 (2003); Marshall v. Wimes, 261 Neb. 846, 626 N.W.2d 229 (2001). We have recognized that although the required procedures may vary according to the interests at stake in a particular context, the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time in a meaningful manner. Hass v. Neth, 265 Neb. at 328, 657 N.W.2d at 20. Accord Marshall v. Wimes, supra . With regard to proceedings before an administrative agency or tribunal, we have stated that procedural due process requires notice, identification of the accuser, factual basis for the accusation, reasonable time and opportunity to present evidence concerning the accusation, and a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker. Id.