Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Gilbert Vs. Homar

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 09, 1997

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

38 entries 9 linked 29 unlinked
Show
  1. Fdic Vs. Mallen US Supreme Court · May 31, 1988
  2. Perry Vs. Sindermann US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  3. Morrissey Vs. Brewer US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  4. Zinermon Vs. Burch US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1990
  5. Barry Vs. Barchi US Supreme Court · Jun 25, 1979
  6. Dixon Vs. Love US Supreme Court · May 16, 1977
  7. North American Cold Storage Co. Vs. Chicago US Supreme Court · Dec 07, 1908
    Distinguished
  8. Mathews Vs. Eldridge US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1976
  9. Board of Regents of State Colleges Vs. Roth US Supreme Court · Jun 29, 1972
  10. U.S. 924 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University, Et Al. V. Hamar
    Search
  11. and a hearing before suspending a tenured public employee without pay. Pp. 928-936. (a) In Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill
    Search
  12. Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. Morrissey v. Brewer
    Search
  13. and (3) the Government's interest. Mathews v. Eldridge
    Search
  14. but account must be taken of the length and finality of the temporary deprivation of his pay. Logan v. Zimmerman
    Search
  15. in 929 their tenure and cannot be fired without due process, see Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
    Search
  16. once to petitioners' contention that respondent received all the process he was due. A In Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill
    Search
  17. Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers v. McElroy
    Search
  18. process, postdeprivation process satisfies the requirements of the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., United States v. James
    Search
  19. U. S. 306 , 314-320 (1908). Indeed, in Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  20. U. S. 527 (1981), overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  21. U. S., at 540. And in FDIC v. Mallen
    Search
  22. Brief for Appellee in FDIC v. Mallen
    Search
  23. Logan v. Zimmerman
    Search
  24. is at least as significant as the State's interest in preserving the integrity of the sport of horse racing, see Barry v. Barchi
    Search
  25. the independently verifiable fact of whether an employee had indeed been formally charged with a felony. See Codd v. Velger
    Search
  26. and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered. 937 VEY v. CLINTON
    Search
  27. Petitioner's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. For the reasons stated in Martin v. District
    Search
  28. Rule 33.1. We enter the order barring future in forma pauperis filings for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District
    Search
  29. no part in the decision of this case. JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting. For reasons previously stated, see Martin v. District
    Search
  30. Syllabus Gilbert, President, East Stroudsburg University, Et Al. V. Hamar
    Search
  31. In Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill
    Search
  32. A In Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill
    Search
  33. United States v. James
    Search
  34. Parratt v. Taylor
    Search
  35. Daniels v. Williams
    Search
  36. See Codd v. Velger
    Search
  37. Vey V. Clinton
    Search
  38. Martin v. District
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial