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.
12 Tennessee opinions name it 2 courts 2002–2025 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Tennessee 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen2 sentences2024We will refer to the Appellee as “Shelby County” for convenience but also specify which actions were taken by individuals acting on behalf of the Civil Service Merit Board. 2 A Loudermill hearing refers to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill that the Due Process Clause “requires some kind of a hearing prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his [or her] employment.” 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 November 17, 2021, was actually a Wednesday. 2024We will refer to the Appellee as “Shelby County” for convenience but also specify which actions were taken by individuals acting on behalf of the Civil Service Merit Board. 2 A Loudermill hearing refers to the United States Supreme Court’s holding in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill that the Due Process Clause “requires some kind of a hearing prior to the discharge of an employee who has a constitutionally protected property interest in his [or her] employment.” 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 November 17, 2021, was actually a Wednesday. | 4 | 10 |
Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Departmentgreen2 sentences2012The record indicates that Jones acknowledged at the hearing that she understood the requirements for a proper authorization form and the requirements for 2 “The term ‘Loudermill hearing’ derives from the United States Supreme Court decision Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S. Ct. 1487 (1985).” Davis v. Shelby County Sheriff's Dep't, 278 S.W.3d 256 , 260 n.11 (Tenn. 2009). 2012“The Loudermill Court held that a public employee who can be discharged only for cause must be given notice and an opportunity to respond to the charges against him prior to termination.” Davis, 278 S.W.3d at 260 n.11 (citing Loudermill, 470 U.S. at 546 ). 3 The appellate record does not include a transcript of the Loudermill hearing. -3- notation of the release of such information in a disclosure log, and that she had complied with neither requirement.4 After the Loudermill hearing, on September 30, 2010, the Health Department director hand- delivered a letter to Jones with her findings and h | 1 | 2 |
Case v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Boardgreen1 sentence2021See Case v. Shelby County Civil Service Merit Bd., 98 S.W.3d 167, 176 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (finding no error in the admission of a Loudermill hearing transcript). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Tennessee. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
1 sentence2025The post-hearing termination letter states that Ms. Bryant “appeared, accepted, acknowledged, and apologized for [her] actions and performance.” Ms. Bryant has not demonstrated that the events that took place during her Loudermill hearing deprived her of “the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful 4 The parties do not dispute the fact that Ms. Bryant held a property interest in her continued employment. - 11 - time and in a meaningful manner.’” Moss, 597 S.W.3d at 831 (quoting Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333 ). | 1 | 2025–2025 |
William L. Thompson v. Memphis Light, Gas and Water and Joseph Lee, III
green
2 sentences2025She 1 A Loudermill hearing has been described as “the first hearing in the grievance process, in which the employee is given the opportunity to present reasons why he should not receive the proposed discipline.” Thompson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 416 S.W.3d 402 , 408 n.7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). -3- noted that Ms. Bryant continued to have problems after the February 2019 incidents and was placed on probation the following summer. 2025She 1 A Loudermill hearing has been described as “the first hearing in the grievance process, in which the employee is given the opportunity to present reasons why he should not receive the proposed discipline.” Thompson v. Memphis Light, Gas & Water, 416 S.W.3d 402 , 408 n.7 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2011). -3- noted that Ms. Bryant continued to have problems after the February 2019 incidents and was placed on probation the following summer. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
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.