Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Codd Vs. Velger

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Feb 22, 1977

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

63 entries 3 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. Gagnon Vs. Scarpelli US Supreme Court · May 14, 1973
  2. Morrissey Vs. Brewer US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  3. Nixon Vs. Herndon US Supreme Court · Mar 07, 1927
  4. U.S. 624 (1977) U.S. Supreme Court Codd v. Velger
    Search
  5. U.S. 624 (1977) Codd v. Velger
    Search
  6. to consent to the release of such information if they wished to be seriously considered for other employment. Velger v. Cawley
    Search
  7. F.2d 334 (1975). We granted certiorari sub nom. Cawley v. Velger
    Search
  8. whether the circumstances of its apparent dissemination were such as to fall within the language of Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  9. U. S. 564 , 408 U. S. 573 (1972), and Bishop v. Wood
    Search
  10. is whether, if he did commit the act, his parole should, under all the circumstances, therefore be revoked. Morrissey v. Brewer
    Search
  11. creation and disclosure of the file report otherwise amounted to stigmatization within the meaning of Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  12. by his former employer at which he would have the opportunity to refute the charge in question. Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  13. The opinion of the District Court on this point reflects a proper understanding of Roth, supra, and of Perry v. Sindermann
    Search
  14. information in his employment file, information later disseminated to a prospective employer. Under Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  15. the burden shifts to the wrongdoer to demonstrate that any such interference was strictly harmless. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
    Search
  16. Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v. Doyle
    Search
  17. of an established constitutional right. As with any infringement of an intangible constitutional right, e.g., Nixon v. Herndon
    Search
  18. It would also be a departure from Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  19. A hearing my establish that such a deprivation of liberty is warranted because the charges are correct. But Bishop v. Wood
    Search
  20. of liberty, because it was not associated with the termination of Page 429 U. S. 634 employment. Paul v. Davis
    Search
  21. perfectly clear that the charge is true, the Constitution requires that procedural safeguards be observed. Cf. Groppi v. Leslie
    Search
  22. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath
    Search
  23. as that term is used in Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  24. itself as demonstrating that future release to employer would bar respondent from obtaining employment. Velger v. Cawley
    Search
  25. United States v. Real
    Search
  26. merit to the property claim to justify a remand to the Court of Appeals with directions to consider it. In Bishop v. Wood
    Search
  27. standard. In re Going v. Kennedy
    Search
  28. Talamo v. Murphy
    Search
  29. of falsity. I recognize that there is authority for the view that falsity is an element of the violation. See Sims v. Fox
    Search
  30. F.2d 857, 863-864 (CA5 1974) (en banc), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1011. Cf. Paul v. Davis
    Search
  31. U. S. 693 , 424 U. S. 709 -710 (describing Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  32. Similarly, since disclosure of the charges is also part of the deprivation of liberty, Bishop v. Wood
    Search
  33. See Judge Tone's thoughtful discussion of this problem in Hostrop v. Board
    Search
  34. is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.' United States v. United
    Search
  35. Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine
    Search
  36. that respondent would have obtained a job except for the contents of his file. Velger v. Cawley
    Search
  37. In Arnett v. Kennedy
    Search
  38. In In re Going v. Kennedy
    Search
  39. s decision to discharge a prabationary police officer. 38 N.Y.2d at 639, 345 N.E.2d at 547. See also In re Farrell v. New
    Search
  40. Cf. Perry v. Sindermann
    Search
  41. party prevailing below need not argue the merits of claims the lower court failed to reach. See generally Dandridge v. Williams
    Search
  42. U.S. Supreme Court Codd v. Velger
    Search
  43. Velger v. Cawley
    Search
  44. Cawley v. Velger
    Search
  45. of Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  46. and Bishop v. Wood
    Search
  47. Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  48. and of Perry v. Sindermann
    Search
  49. Under Board of Regents v. Roth
    Search
  50. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial