(Br. in Support of Defs.’ Mt. for Summ. J., 10.) Even if a home is being rented, governmental interference with a landlord's property right through padlocking can be a deprivation of. property without due process of law if there is no notice and no "extraordinary situation where some valid governmental interest is at stake that justifies postponing the hearing until after the event.” United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43 at 53, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993), quoting Fuentes, id. Thus, the state court’s ruling that Ms. Habich was a landlord at the time of the padlocking does not affect analysis of the due process claim. 2 . See also City of Las Vegas Downtown Redevelopment Agency v. Pappas, 76 P.3d 1 (Nev. 2003), cert. denied, 2004 WL 35806 (2004)
holding that even when there is a legitimate government purpose the discrimination must bear at least some rational relationship to that purpose holding that combating blight is a permissible public purpose and upholding the taking of property for that purpose even when the specific property taken is not in a blighted condition recognizing that eontract rights are a form of property and as such may be taken for a public purpose provided that just compensation is paid holding that a defendant is in custody and miranda applies even when the purpose of defendants detention is unrelated to the purpose of the interrogation holding that where the sole purpose of the ordinance was to freeze property values so that the property could be subsequently acquired for a public purpose the walls of jericho must fall