today, following the dicta in Bissell, contravenes these principles. “The fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner’ ” upon the deprivation of. liberty or property. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893, 902, 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 85 S.Ct. 1187, 1191, 14 L.Ed.2d 62 (1965)). This basic statement of due process requires different measures in different contexts. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2600, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (“[D]ue process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands.”); Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 313, 70 S.Ct. 652, 657, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950) (<HOLDING>). In any particular context, three factors are
holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness holding that constitutional due process in civil contempt proceedings requires notice and a hearing but not the right to counsel recognizing due process right to notice and informal hearing in school disciplinary process holding that constitution requires  an opportunity  granted at a meaningful time and a meaningful manner  for a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case