post-termination hearing in Arizona

10 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2018 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Arizona 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.

Followed or applied (8)

Case	Followed	Cited
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen scotus · 1985 · cited in 4 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1985–2007 2 sentences 2007Id. (“Our holding rests in part on the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing.”); see Deuel v. Ariz. State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 165 Ariz. 524, 526 , 799 P.2d 865, 867 (App.1990) (interpreting Loudermill as requiring the government to “fulfill its obligation to provide a meaningful hearing” when an employee is removed pursuant to informal pre-termination procedures). ¶ 17 Thus, before Carlson could be finally deprived of his constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment, one of the protections to which he was entitled was an opportunity to 1990ISSUE The sole issue on appeal is whether a public employee has the right to a post-termination hearing, if before being discharged, he or she has received minimum pre-termination process within the meaning of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985).	1	4
United States v. Corona-Verberagreen ca9 · 2007 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Delay of an indictment does not violate due process unless the defendant proves “actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay” and that the length of the delay, when weighed against the reasons for the delay, “offends those ‘fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.’” United States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977)).	1	1
United States v. Lovascogreen scotus · 1977 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2018–2018 1 sentence 2018Delay of an indictment does not violate due process unless the defendant proves “actual, non-speculative prejudice from the delay” and that the length of the delay, when weighed against the reasons for the delay, “offends those ‘fundamental conceptions of justice which lie at the base of our civil and political institutions.’” United States v. Corona-Verbera, 509 F.3d 1105, 1112 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790 (1977)).	1	1
Deuel v. Arizona State School for the Deaf & Blindgreen arizctapp · 1990 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Id. (“Our holding rests in part on the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing.”); see Deuel v. Ariz. State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 165 Ariz. 524, 526 , 799 P.2d 865, 867 (App.1990) (interpreting Loudermill as requiring the government to “fulfill its obligation to provide a meaningful hearing” when an employee is removed pursuant to informal pre-termination procedures). ¶ 17 Thus, before Carlson could be finally deprived of his constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment, one of the protections to which he was entitled was an opportunity to 2007Id. (“Our holding rests in part on the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing.”); see Deuel v. Ariz. State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 165 Ariz. 524, 526 , 799 P.2d 865, 867 (App.1990) (interpreting Loudermill as requiring the government to “fulfill its obligation to provide a meaningful hearing” when an employee is removed pursuant to informal pre-termination procedures). ¶ 17 Thus, before Carlson could be finally deprived of his constitutionally protected property interest in his continued employment, one of the protections to which he was entitled was an opportunity to	1	1
Rosen v. Raegreen arizctapp · 1982 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995They assert that a party who accepts a legal advantage under an order waives his right to review of the adjudication that might put in issue his right to the accepted benefit, citing Rosen v. Rae, 132 Ariz. 509, 511 , 647 P.2d 640, 642 (App.1982), and Arizona Downs v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 73, 74 , 623 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1981). 1995They assert that a party who accepts a legal advantage under an order waives his right to review of the adjudication that might put in issue his right to the accepted benefit, citing Rosen v. Rae, 132 Ariz. 509, 511 , 647 P.2d 640, 642 (App.1982), and Arizona Downs v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 73, 74 , 623 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1981).	1	1
Arizona Downs v. Superior Court of Ariz.green ariz · 1981 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1995–1995 2 sentences 1995They assert that a party who accepts a legal advantage under an order waives his right to review of the adjudication that might put in issue his right to the accepted benefit, citing Rosen v. Rae, 132 Ariz. 509, 511 , 647 P.2d 640, 642 (App.1982), and Arizona Downs v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 73, 74 , 623 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1981). 1995They assert that a party who accepts a legal advantage under an order waives his right to review of the adjudication that might put in issue his right to the accepted benefit, citing Rosen v. Rae, 132 Ariz. 509, 511 , 647 P.2d 640, 642 (App.1982), and Arizona Downs v. Superior Court, 128 Ariz. 73, 74 , 623 P.2d 1229, 1230 (1981).	1	1
Jane Doe v. United States Department of Justicegreen cadc · 1985 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 1 sentence 1985See Doe v. United States Department of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1112-14 ; cf. McLeod v. Chilton, 132 Ariz. 9, 19 , 643 P.2d 712, 722 (App.1982).	1	1
McLeod v. Chiltongreen arizctapp · 1981 · cited in 1 Arizona opinions naming this issue, 1985–1985 2 sentences 1985See Doe v. United States Department of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1112-14 ; cf. McLeod v. Chilton, 132 Ariz. 9, 19 , 643 P.2d 712, 722 (App.1982). 1985See Doe v. United States Department of Justice, 753 F.2d at 1112-14 ; cf. McLeod v. Chilton, 132 Ariz. 9, 19 , 643 P.2d 712, 722 (App.1982).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

Case	Cited	Years
Mathews v. Eldridge green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 2007Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citation omitted); Deuel, 165 Ariz. at 526 , 799 P.2d at 867 . 2007Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976) (citation omitted); Deuel, 165 Ariz. at 526 , 799 P.2d at 867 .	2	1990–2007
Roberts v. City of Tucson neutral ariz · 1979 2 sentences 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979). 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979).	2	1984–1987
Pima County v. Cardi green arizctapp · 1979 2 sentences 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979). 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979).	1	1987–1987
Bishop v. Wood green scotus · 1976 2 sentences 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979). 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979).	1	1987–1987
Arnett v. Kennedy green scotus · 1974 2 sentences 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979). 1987Bishop v. Wood, 426 U.S. 341 , 96 S.Ct. 2074 , 48 L.Ed.2d 684 (1976); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134 , 94 S.Ct. 1633 , 40 L.Ed.2d 15 (1974); Pima County v. Cardi, 123 Ariz. 424 , 600 P.2d 37 (1979); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979).	1	1987–1987
City of Flagstaff v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC. green ariz · 1977 2 sentences 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977). 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977).	1	1984–1984
Erle E. Peacock, Jr. v. Board of Regents of the Universities and State Colleges of Arizona green ca9 · 1975 1 sentence 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977).	1	1984–1984
Peacock v. Board of Regents of Universities & State Colleges green scotus · 1975 1 sentence 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977).	1	1984–1984
Edwards Underground Water District v. Hills green scotus · 1975 2 sentences 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977). 1984Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) (involving, no loss of salary); Roberts v. City of Tucson, 122 Ariz. 91 , 593 P.2d 645 (1979); City of Flagstaff v. Superior Court of Coconino County, 116 Ariz. 382 , 569 P.2d 812 (1977).	1	1984–1984
Kelly v. Wyman green nysd · 1969 1 sentence 1978The Court in Goldberg quoted from the district court opinion in Kelly v. Wyman, 294 F.Supp. 893 (1968): “While post-termination review is relevant, there is one overpowering fact which controls here.	1	1978–1978
Goldberg v. Kelly green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 1978The seminal ease dealing with the necessity of a pre-termination hearing when government benefits are involved is Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) where the issue was whether a welfare recipient could have his payments terminated without a pre-termination hearing even though a post-termination hearing was available. 1978The seminal ease dealing with the necessity of a pre-termination hearing when government benefits are involved is Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970) where the issue was whether a welfare recipient could have his payments terminated without a pre-termination hearing even though a post-termination hearing was available.	1	1978–1978
Richard Kennedy v. Harold T. Robb, M.D., and Patrick J. Gannon, M.D. green ca8 · 1977 1 sentence 1977In the view of the court in Kennedy, supra, the pre-termination hearing is not a final hearing but only a hearing to determine if there is cause to dismiss, with the employee still entitled to a full post-termination hearing: “The need at this stage of proposed, dismissal is to minimize the employee’s risk of wrongful termination, not a decision on the merits.	1	1977–1977

Statutes the citing opinions construe

AZ § Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-901 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

CA 10 (1974–2019) AZ 10 (1977–2018) PA 9 (1982–2026) TN 9 (2002–2025) NM 8 (1992–2024) OH 7 (1988–2006) TX 7 (1990–2016) MO 7 (1989–2020) IL 6 (1979–1997) NJ 5 (1976–2019) AK 5 (1986–2025) IN 4 (1974–2014) ND 4 (2000–2019) IA 4 (1994–2021) OK 3 (2014–2014) MI 3 (1982–1986) OR 3 (1976–1992) AL 3 (1972–2018) WY 3 (2011–2022) LA 3 (1989–2009) VT 3 (2014–2015) MT 3 (1994–2016) KS 3 (2001–2015) FL 3 (1981–2008) NY 2 (2007–2020) DE 2 (2015–2018) UT 2 (1997–2004) WA 2 (1978–1986) SC 2 (1997–2013) SD 2 (2000–2001)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check