Citation network
Cafeteria Workers Vs. Mcelroy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 19, 1961
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 886 (1961) U.S. Supreme Court Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 886 (1961) Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
We granted certiorari because of an alleged conflict between the Court of Appeals' decision and Greene v. McElroySearch
-
I In Greene v. McElroySearch
-
The significance of such presidential approval has often been recognized by this Court. Smith v. WhitneySearch
-
United States v. MauriceSearch
-
Homer v. RichmondSearch
-
Murray's Lessee v. HobokenSearch
-
concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation. Federal Communications Comm. v. WJRSearch
-
Hagar v. ReclamationSearch
-
it has traditionally been held that notice and hearing are not constitutionally required. Oceanic Steam Navigation Co. v. StranahanSearch
-
Knauff v. ShaughnessySearch
-
Buttfield v. StranahanSearch
-
It most assuredly was not the right to follow a chosen trade or Page 367 U. S. 896 profession. Cf. Dent v. StateSearch
-
Schware v. BoardSearch
-
rather, as proprietor, to manage the internal operation of an important federal military establishment. See People v. CraneSearch
-
Perkins v. LukensSearch
-
Schware, supra, the physician in Dent, supra, and the cook in Raich, supra. This case, like Perkins v. LukensSearch
-
Crenshaw v. UnitedSearch
-
Parsons v. UnitedSearch
-
Keim v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 575 -578. This principle was Page 367 U. S. 897 reaffirmed quite recently in Vitarelli v. SeatonSearch
-
It is argued that this view of Rachel Brawner's interest is inconsistent with our decisions in United Public Workers v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S. 75 , and Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
to bestow a badge of disloyalty or infamy, with an attendant foreclosure from other employment opportunity. See Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
Bailey v. RichardsonSearch
-
approval was relied upon in one case as a basis for finding certain administrative action unauthorized. See Phillips v. UnitedSearch
-
The contrast with the history of the security program involved in Greene v. McElroySearch
-
without notice of charges or opportunity to refute them was authorized by statute or executive order. See Greene v. McElroySearch
-
Constitution from some kinds of governmental injury. Indeed, this acknowledgment seems compelled by our cases. Wieman v. UpdegraffSearch
-
United Public Workers of America v. MitchellSearch
-
U. S. 123 , 341 U. S. 168 (concurring opinion). See also Homer v. RichmondSearch
-
U.S.App.D.C. 226, 292 F.2d 719. Parker v. LesterSearch
-
carries a much more sinister meaning. See Beilan v. BoardSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
and Greene v. McElroySearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial