Citation network
Cleveland Bd. of Educ. Vs. Loudermill
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Mar 19, 1985
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. 532 (1985) U.S. Supreme Court Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LoudermillSearch
-
U.S. 532 (1985) Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSearch
-
Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
Reagan v. UnitedSearch
-
they did, the State could not deprive them of this property without due process. See Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. CraftSearch
-
supra, at 408 U. S. 577 . See also Paul v. DavisSearch
-
This argument, which was accepted by the District Court, has its genesis in the plurality opinion in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
Douglas and BRENNAN, JJ.). Since then, this theory has at times seemed to gather some additional support. See Bishop v. WoodSearch
-
J., and BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., dissenting). More recently, however, the Court has clearly rejected it. In Vitek v. JonesSearch
-
This conclusion was reiterated in Logan v. ZimmermanSearch
-
Mullane v. CentralSearch
-
Bell v. BursonSearch
-
discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his employment. Board of Regents v. RothSearch
-
U. S. 599 (1972). As we pointed out last Term, this rule has been settled for some time now. Davis v. SchererSearch
-
which the charge was based, and could respond orally and in writing and present rebuttal affidavits. See also Barry v. BarchiSearch
-
employees and the avoidance of administrative burdens, and the risk of an erroneous termination. See Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
be gainsaid. We have frequently recognized the severity of depriving a person of the means of livelihood. See Fusari v. SteinbergSearch
-
Sniadach v. FamilySearch
-
and is likely to be burdened by the questionable circumstances under which he left his previous job. See Lefkowitz v. TurleySearch
-
obvious value in reaching an accurate decision. Dismissals for cause will often involve factual disputes. Cf. Califano v. YamasakiSearch
-
to invoke the discretion of the decisionmaker is likely to be before the termination takes effect. See Goss v. LopezSearch
-
and the right to a hearing does not depend on a demonstration of certain success. Carey v. PiphusSearch
-
U.S. at 401 U. S. 378 . See Cafeteria Workers v. McElroySearch
-
than a full evidentiary hearing is sufficient prior to adverse administrative action. Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
The only question is what steps were required before the termination took effect. In only one case, Goldberg v. KellySearch
-
reasonable grounds to believe that the charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action. See Bell v. BursonSearch
-
him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and an opportunity to present his side of the story. See Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
Goss v. LopezSearch
-
E.g., Armstrong v. ManzoSearch
-
At some point, a delay in the post-termination hearing would become a constitutional violation. See Barry v. BarchiSearch
-
Together with No. 83-1363, Parma Board of Education v. DonnellySearch
-
et al., and No. 83-6392, Loudermill v. ClevelandSearch
-
Instead, it reached the same result under a balancing test based on JUSTICE POWELL's concurring opinion in Arnett v. KennedySearch
-
U. S. 134 , 416 U. S. 168 -169 (1974), and the Court's opinion in Mathews v. EldridgeSearch
-
are, of course, some situations in which a postdeprivation hearing will satisfy due process requirements. See Ewing v. MytingerSearch
-
to say that, where state conduct is entirely discretionary, the Due Process Clause is brought into play. See Meachum v. FanoSearch
-
on a hearing in order to argue that the decisionmaker should be lenient and depart from legal requirements. See Dixon v. LoveSearch
-
U.S. Supreme Court Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. LoudermillSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial