Citation network
Arnett Vs. Kennedy
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Apr 16, 1974
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
-
U.S. 134 (1974) U.S. Supreme Court Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
U.S. 134 (1974) Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
create, and the Due Process Clause does not require, any additional expectancy of job retention. Cf. Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
that is ground for removal, is not impermissibly vague or overbroad in regulating federal employees' speech. CSC v. LetterSearch
-
benefits may be extended to federal employees. Appellee recognizes that our recent decisions in Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
U. S. 564 (1972), and Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
employment which could not be divested without first affording him a full adversary hearing. In Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
governmental employer has had virtually uncontrolled latitude in decisions as to hiring and firing, Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
of portions Page 416 U. S. 153 of a statute under which it has simultaneously claimed benefits. In Fahey v. MalloneSearch
-
United States v. SanSearch
-
U. S. 16 , 310 U. S. 29 . As formulated by Mr. Justice Brandeis, concurring in Ashwander v. TennesseeSearch
-
Appellees urge that the judgment of the District Court must be sustained on the authority of cases such as Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
U. S. 254 (1970), Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
U. S. 67 (1972), Bell v. BursonSearch
-
U. S. 535 (1971), and Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to an adversary hearing before their benefits are terminated. Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
-
held that a hearing was generally required before one could have his property seized under a writ of replevin. In Bell v. BursonSearch
-
for failure to post security under Georgia's uninsured motorist statute. And in Sniadach Page 416 U. S. 155 v. FamilySearch
-
protected by the Fifth Amendment against deprivation without due process. In Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
by appellants' action is not the elemental freedom from external restraint such as was involved in Morrissey v. BrewerSearch
-
federal employees is constitutionally sufficient against the charges both of overbreadth and of vagueness. In CSC v. LetterSearch
-
choice of enacting a detailed code of employee conduct or else granting no job protection at all. As we said in Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
procedure offered by the Civil Service Commission important in rejecting the respondents' vagueness contentions in CSC v. LetterSearch
-
job protection, is without doubt intended to authorize dismissal for speech as well as other conduct. Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
Leventhal, writing for a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Meehan v. MacySearch
-
in the Act excludes constitutionally protected speech, and that the statute is therefore not overbroad. Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
United States v. Thirty-sevenSearch
-
for his discharge. Pickering v. BoardSearch
-
not intend to include within that term any constitutionally protected conduct. We think that our statement in Colten v. KentuckySearch
-
Page 416 U. S. 165 The Court's decisions in Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
for deprivation of a statutorily created property interest must be analyzed in constitutional terms. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
employee is weighed against the interest of the affected employee in continued public employment. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
supra, at 397 U. S. 263 -266. As the Court stated in Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroySearch
-
As the Court stated in Boddie v. ConnecticutSearch
-
See Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
My Brother MARSHALL rejects the Government's interest in efficiency as insignificant, citing Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
U. S. 254 , 397 U. S. 266 (1970), and Fuentes v. ShevinSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial