be deprived of his interests in the absence of a proceeding in which he may present his case with assurance the arbiter is not predisposed to find against him.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242, 100 S.Ct. 1610, 64. L.Ed.2d 182 (1980). Plaintiffs have established that the revocation proceedings before the City Planning Commission lacked the requisite neutrality and impartiality. The City Planner, Norman Birr, acted as an advocate for revocation. (Defs.’ Ex. DX 623; Hr’g Tr. Vol. I at 198-99.) He met with Planning Commission members outside the hearing to review the evidence with them. (Hr’g Tr. Vol. I at 206-07.) Thus, not only were procedural safeguards completely lacking in the revocation hearing, but all pretense of neutrality was abandoned as the City Planner beca .1988) (<HOLDING>). The evidence presented by Hillside
holding that the plaintiff owner of a restaurantbar stated a cause of action for deprivation of a liberty interest by alleging that the defendant city engaged in a campaign of harassment that infringed on the plaintiffs constitutional right to pursue an occupation holding that harassment and delay in plaintiffs attempt to obtain a barbers license constitutes a due process violation of the plaintiffs liberty interest in the pursuit of that occupation recognizing the cause of action holding citys termination of plaintiffs contracts and publishing negative news report did not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest even though a significant part of plaintiffs business had involved projects for the city holding that members of the city council in their official capacity are not immune from a section 1983 suit against the municipality for deprivation of liberty interest in reputation without due process