Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 Oregon opinions name it 2 courts 1973–2022 1 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oregon courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen2 sentences1974Petitioner’s contention that she was constitutionally entitled to a pretermination hearing is disposed of by Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 97 Ady Sh 669, 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), in which, relying on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972), we said: “* * * Employes who are in probationary status, either temporarily or permanently, have no property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1974Petitioner’s contention that she was constitutionally entitled to a pretermination hearing is disposed of by Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 97 Ady Sh 669, 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), in which, relying on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972), we said: “* * * Employes who are in probationary status, either temporarily or permanently, have no property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 2 | 5 |
Perry v. Sindermanngreen2 sentences1973See *271 also, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972).” In Papadopoulos we concluded, that the state law governing the job security of a professor on annual tenure was not such as to require a pretermination hearing. 1973See *271 also, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972).” In Papadopoulos we concluded, that the state law governing the job security of a professor on annual tenure was not such as to require a pretermination hearing. | 1 | 4 |
State v. Grafgreen2 sentences2013Compare State v. Graf, 316 Or 544 , 853 P2d 277 (1993) (in light of the options available to a state employee, holding a pretermination hearing before deciding whether to discharge the employee for conduct that also constituted a crime did not unconstitutionally coerce the employee into giving up his right against self-incrimination to avoid losing his job), with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 , 87 S Ct 616 , 17 L Ed 2d 562 (1967) (ordering a state police officer to surrender his right against self-incrimination or face the loss of his job unconstitutionally coerced his waiver of the right) 2013Compare State v. Graf, 316 Or 544 , 853 P2d 277 (1993) (in light of the options available to a state employee, holding a pretermination hearing before deciding whether to discharge the employee for conduct that also constituted a crime did not unconstitutionally coerce the employee into giving up his right against self-incrimination to avoid losing his job), with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 , 87 S Ct 616 , 17 L Ed 2d 562 (1967) (ordering a state police officer to surrender his right against self-incrimination or face the loss of his job unconstitutionally coerced his waiver of the right) | 1 | 2 |
Garrity v. New Jerseygreen2 sentences2013Compare State v. Graf, 316 Or 544 , 853 P2d 277 (1993) (in light of the options available to a state employee, holding a pretermination hearing before deciding whether to discharge the employee for conduct that also constituted a crime did not unconstitutionally coerce the employee into giving up his right against self-incrimination to avoid losing his job), with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 , 87 S Ct 616 , 17 L Ed 2d 562 (1967) (ordering a state police officer to surrender his right against self-incrimination or face the loss of his job unconstitutionally coerced his waiver of the right) 2013Compare State v. Graf, 316 Or 544 , 853 P2d 277 (1993) (in light of the options available to a state employee, holding a pretermination hearing before deciding whether to discharge the employee for conduct that also constituted a crime did not unconstitutionally coerce the employee into giving up his right against self-incrimination to avoid losing his job), with Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 US 493 , 87 S Ct 616 , 17 L Ed 2d 562 (1967) (ordering a state police officer to surrender his right against self-incrimination or face the loss of his job unconstitutionally coerced his waiver of the right) | 1 | 2 |
Ingraham v. Wrightgreen2 sentences2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed 2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed | 1 | 1 |
Wilkinson v. Austingreen2 sentences2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed 2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed | 1 | 1 |
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed 2022Compare Ingraham v. Wright, 430 US 651, 683 , 97 S Ct 1401 , 51 L Ed 2d 711 (1977) (holding that a remedy in state tort law alone satisfied due process for corporal punish- ment in schools and that no notice or hearing was required), with Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 US 209, 216, 225-26 , 125 S Ct 2384 , 162 L Ed 2d 174 (2005) (concluding that due pro- cess was satisfied by written notice of the factual basis for deprivation of a liberty interest, a pretermination hearing that the inmate may attend, the opportunity to rebut the factual allegations, and the opportunity to have the decision reviewed | 1 | 1 |
Arnett v. Kennedygreen2 sentences1978See, Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 US 134, 170 , 40 L Ed 2d 15, 42 (1974). 1978See, Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 US 134, 170 , 40 L Ed 2d 15, 42 (1974). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oregon. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Papadopoulos v. Oregon State Board of Higher Education
green
2 sentences1974Petitioner’s contention that she was constitutionally entitled to a pretermination hearing is disposed of by Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 97 Ady Sh 669, 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), in which, relying on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972), we said: “* * * Employes who are in probationary status, either temporarily or permanently, have no property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. 1974Petitioner’s contention that she was constitutionally entitled to a pretermination hearing is disposed of by Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 97 Ady Sh 669, 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), in which, relying on Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972), we said: “* * * Employes who are in probationary status, either temporarily or permanently, have no property interest within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. | 4 | 1973–1974 |
State v. Graf
green
2 sentences2015Instead, if the defendant had chosen not to testify at the pretermination hearing, “he could have tested the constitutionality of any adverse consequences, as did Soriano.” Id. 1993The Court of Appeals erred in concluding that defendant was “compelled to testify” and that “failure to appear and testify at the pretermination hearing would have resulted in defendant’s being denied his right to a full due process post-termination hearing at which he could refute the charges and offer matters in mitigation.” Ibid. | 2 | 1993–2015 |
Tupper v. FAIRVIEW HOSP. & TRAIN. CENTER, ETC.
green
2 sentences1977As I see it the hearing before the chief of police was a pretermination hearing and substantially met the minimum standards of due process subsequently announced in Tupper v. Fairview Hospital, 276 Or 657 , 556 P2d 1340 (1976). 1977As I see it the hearing before the chief of police was a pretermination hearing and substantially met the minimum standards of due process subsequently announced in Tupper v. Fairview Hospital, 276 Or 657 , 556 P2d 1340 (1976). | 2 | 1977–1978 |
Schlichting v. Bergstrom
green
2 sentences1974The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), cert denied 417 US 919 (1974); Schlichting v. Bergstrom, 13 Or App 562 , 511 P2d 846 (1973); and Hawkins v. School Disk 14, 16 Or App 41 , 517 P2d 330 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). 1973The essence of those cases is stated succinctly in Schlichting, 13 Or App at 565 , as follows: “In Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 11 Or App 621 , 511 P2d 854 (1973), we held that whether a public employe is entitled to a pretermination hearing depends on his entitlement to continued employment, i.e., his job security; the existence and extent of a public employe’s job security depend upon state law governing public employment. | 2 | 1973–1974 |
Morrissey v. Brewer
green
1 sentence2022In Morrissey, the Court conducted that analysis in the context of parole revocation. 408 US at 488-89 . | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Tupper v. Fairview Hospital & Training Center
neutral
1 sentence1979Tupper I held that the dismissal of a public employe without a pretermination hearing violated due process but that, in that case, the constitutional deficiency was cured by the subsequent post-dismissal hearing. 22 Or App at 535-36 . | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Hawkins v. Linn County School District No. 14
green
2 sentences1974The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), cert denied 417 US 919 (1974); Schlichting v. Bergstrom, 13 Or App 562 , 511 P2d 846 (1973); and Hawkins v. School Disk 14, 16 Or App 41 , 517 P2d 330 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). 1974The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), cert denied 417 US 919 (1974); Schlichting v. Bergstrom, 13 Or App 562 , 511 P2d 846 (1973); and Hawkins v. School Disk 14, 16 Or App 41 , 517 P2d 330 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Testa v. United States
green
1 sentence1974The relevant authorities are: Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 US 564 , 92 S Ct 2701 , 33 L Ed 2d 548 (1972); Perry v. Sindermann, 408 US 593 , 92 S Ct 2694 , 92 S Ct 2717 , 33 L Ed 2d 570 (1972); Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 14 Or App 130 , 511 P2d 854 , Sup Ct review denied (1973), cert denied 417 US 919 (1974); Schlichting v. Bergstrom, 13 Or App 562 , 511 P2d 846 (1973); and Hawkins v. School Disk 14, 16 Or App 41 , 517 P2d 330 (1973), Sup Ct review denied (1974). | 1 | 1974–1974 |
Whitney v. Board of Regents of University of Wis.
green
2 sentences1973The only published opinion we have found which holds language analogous to that in the case at bar required a pretermination hearing is Whitney v. Board of Regents of University of Wis., 355 F Supp 321 (ED Wisc 1973), in which the court held that a statement that a teacher was immature and inadequate was sufficient. 1973The only published opinion we have found which holds language analogous to that in the case at bar required a pretermination hearing is Whitney v. Board of Regents of University of Wis., 355 F Supp 321 (ED Wisc 1973), in which the court held that a statement that a teacher was immature and inadequate was sufficient. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Papadopoulos v. State Board of Higher Education
neutral
2 sentences1973The essence of those cases is stated succinctly in Schlichting, 13 Or App at 565 , as follows: “In Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 11 Or App 621 , 511 P2d 854 (1973), we held that whether a public employe is entitled to a pretermination hearing depends on his entitlement to continued employment, i.e., his job security; the existence and extent of a public employe’s job security depend upon state law governing public employment. 1973The essence of those cases is stated succinctly in Schlichting, 13 Or App at 565 , as follows: “In Papadopoulos v. Bd. of Higher Ed., 11 Or App 621 , 511 P2d 854 (1973), we held that whether a public employe is entitled to a pretermination hearing depends on his entitlement to continued employment, i.e., his job security; the existence and extent of a public employe’s job security depend upon state law governing public employment. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.