Citation network
Bishop Vs. Wood
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 10, 1976
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
-
U.S. 341 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
U.S. 341 (1976) Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
that State can exist only if the employer by statute or contract, has actually granted some form of guarantee. Still v. LanceSearch
-
it derives some support from a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Still v. LanceSearch
-
We must therefore assume that his discharge was a mistake, and based on incorrect information. In Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
within the meaning of the statute, it was not a proper defendant. Monroe v. PapeSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
In Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
This is not the construction which six Members of this Court placed on the federal regulations involved in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
filing charges or giving its reasons for such termination, or granting the teacher an opportunity to be heard. Still v. LanceSearch
-
See United States v. DurhamSearch
-
Lumber Co., 363 U. S. 522 . In Propper v. ClarkSearch
-
In Township of Hillsborough v. CromwellSearch
-
of the judges of those courts 'who are familiar with the intricacies and trends of local law and practice.' Huddleston v. DwyerSearch
-
say that the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in applying to this case the rule of Duke Power Co. v. StateSearch
-
And in MacGregor v. StateSearch
-
See Wisconsin v. ConstantineauSearch
-
U. S. 433 , 400 U. S. 437 , and the discussion of the interest in reputation allied to employment in Paul v. DavisSearch
-
of this calumny, see, e.g., Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
Court condones this governmental action and holds that petitioner was deprived of no liberty interest thereby. Paul v. DavisSearch
-
In so holding, the Court eviscerated the substance of a long line of prior cases, see, e.g., Anti-Fascist Comm. v. McGrathSearch
-
in the process of terminating his employment. See Paul v. DavisSearch
-
Page 426 U. S. 353 Even under Paul v. DavisSearch
-
cases such as Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
The Court in Paul also ignored the clear import of Goss v. LopezSearch
-
and Jenkins v. McKeithenSearch
-
U. S. 411 (1969). See Paul v. DavisSearch
-
Court is, as my Brother WHITE argues, effectively adopting the analysis rejected by a majority of the Court in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
a State may now avoid all due process safeguards attendant upon the loss of even the necessities of life, cf. Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
Bell v. BursonSearch
-
proposition which was squarely addressed, and, in my view, correctly rejected, by six Members of this Court in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
his job, Page 426 U. S. 356 the District Court said, in an opinion predating this Court's decision in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
precisely the reasoning which was embraced by only three and expressly rejected by six Members of this Court in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
to be adopting a legal principle which specifically was rejected by a majority of the Justices of this Court in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
U. S. 134 (1974). I also feel, however, that Still v. LanceSearch
-
U. S. 564 (1972), and Perry v. SindermannSearch
-
majority intimates, ante at 426 U. S. 345 n. 8, that the views of the three plurality Justices in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
only with respect to the constitutional significance of an unambiguous state law. A majority of the Justices in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
Still v. LanceSearch
-
of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Still v. LanceSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial