641 N.Y.S.2d 753; Oghenekevebe, 473 S.E.2d at 396; Hammons, 10 P.3d at 312; C.C., 48 P.3d at 248; M.D.(S)., 485 N.W.2d at 54. 67 . Douglas, 372 U.S. at 358, 83 S.Ct. at 817. 68 . Id. 69 . 519 U.S. at 110-11, 117 S.Ct. at 560-61; Evitts, 469 U.S. at 400-01, 105 S.Ct. at 838 (noting that State-granted right to appeal would be unique among state actions if it could be withdrawn without consideration of applicable due process norms); see also Sterry, 959 S.W.2d at 257 (concluding that criminal defendant has no constitutional right to have jury assess punishment, but does have statutory right to have jury assess punishment, and this valuable statutory right may not be taken away without due process of law); Moore v. Barr, 718 S.W.2d 925, 926 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1986, no writ) (<HOLDING>). 70 . R.G., 116 Ill.Dec. 69, 518 N.E.2d at
holding a defendant is not vested with a right to be absent from trial holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in vested contractual rights holding that a termination of a government contract does not constitute a taking of the plaintiffs property without just compensation or without due process of law recognizing right to cause of action as property right under navajo due process recognizing that elected political candidate enjoyed vested property right which could not be taken away without due process of law