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.
10 Maryland opinions name it 2 courts 1982–2020 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Maryland 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 |
|---|---|---|
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences2019Thus, a pre-termination hearing was essential "to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of his benefits." Id. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 . 2019Thus, a pre-termination hearing was essential "to protect a recipient against an erroneous termination of his benefits." Id. at 267 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 . | 1 | 3 |
unempl.ins.rep. Cch 22,077 Harry T. Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square Robert F. Goddu Kenneth Roberts Herbert L. Waltz Albert J. McCarthygreen1 sentence2020See Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square, 4 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1993) (unreviewed agency legal determination that plaintiff’s statement was not protected by First Amendment not given preclusive effect); Peery v. Brakke, 826 F.2d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 1987) (unreviewed state agency decision that plaintiff did not have due process right to a pre-termination hearing not accorded preclusive effect); Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 282 , 290- 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (state administrative agency fact findings concerning restraints in mental health facility would be given preclusive ef | 1 | 1 |
cluster 492719green1 sentence2020See Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square, 4 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1993) (unreviewed agency legal determination that plaintiff’s statement was not protected by First Amendment not given preclusive effect); Peery v. Brakke, 826 F.2d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 1987) (unreviewed state agency decision that plaintiff did not have due process right to a pre-termination hearing not accorded preclusive effect); Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 282 , 290- 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (state administrative agency fact findings concerning restraints in mental health facility would be given preclusive ef | 1 | 1 |
Perley v. Palmergreen1 sentence2020See Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square, 4 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1993) (unreviewed agency legal determination that plaintiff’s statement was not protected by First Amendment not given preclusive effect); Peery v. Brakke, 826 F.2d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 1987) (unreviewed state agency decision that plaintiff did not have due process right to a pre-termination hearing not accorded preclusive effect); Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 282 , 290- 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (state administrative agency fact findings concerning restraints in mental health facility would be given preclusive ef | 1 | 1 |
cluster 785565green1 sentence2011See generally Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468 (8th Cir.2004); Ritter v. Cecil County Office of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 33 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.1994). | 1 | 1 |
Don Thompson v. Carl Adamsgreen2 sentences2008Challenging his firing, the plaintiff alleged, in addition to retaliation, violation of his “due process rights under the fourteenth amendment by firing him without notice, a statement of reasons, and a pre-termination hearing, and that the post-termination hearing that he received was inadequate because of bias on the part of the mayor and the council members.” Id. at 611. 2008On the other hand, the manual stated that the City would give written notice of disciplinary action to be, or already, taken, that each employee is entitled to review of any disciplinary action and “that when the city intends to fire an employee, the city will provide ‘written reasons that can be supported at a pre-termination hearing.’ ” Id The plaintiff argued that these provisions amount to a repudiation of “at will” employment “and thus establish the necessary property interest for him.” Id. | 1 | 1 |
Md. Classified Employees Ass'n, Inc. v. Stategreen2 sentences2004Moreover, in Maryland Classified Employees Association v. State of Maryland, supra, 346 Md. at 22, 694 A.2d at 947 , Judge Wilner for this Court took the position that the hearing must ordinarily be "pre-termination," saying: "[W]hen the attributes attendant to public employment under State law are such as to give the employee `a legitimate claim of entitlement' to the position, as under a tenure plan or where dismissal may only be for cause, a property interest in that employment is created, and the right to procedural due process ordinarily requires the opportunity of a pre-termination heari 2004Moreover, in Maryland Classified Employees Association v. State of Maryland, supra, 346 Md. at 22, 694 A.2d at 947 , Judge Wilner for this Court took the position that the hearing must ordinarily be "pre-termination," saying: "[W]hen the attributes attendant to public employment under State law are such as to give the employee `a legitimate claim of entitlement' to the position, as under a tenure plan or where dismissal may only be for cause, a property interest in that employment is created, and the right to procedural due process ordinarily requires the opportunity of a pre-termination heari | 1 | 1 |
Gilbert v. Homargreen1 sentence1997Id. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. at 1495 ; see also Gilbert, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1811 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Maryland. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Karabetis v. Mayor of Baltimore
green
1 sentence2020Iowa 1994) (state agency’s conclusions on disputed issues of law related to Medicaid benefits not given preclusive effect). 37 Karabetis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 72 Md. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020See Edmundson v. Borough of Kennett Square, 4 F.3d 186, 192-93 (3d Cir. 1993) (unreviewed agency legal determination that plaintiff’s statement was not protected by First Amendment not given preclusive effect); Peery v. Brakke, 826 F.2d 740, 746 (8th Cir. 1987) (unreviewed state agency decision that plaintiff did not have due process right to a pre-termination hearing not accorded preclusive effect); Romano v. SLS Residential, Inc., 812 F.Supp.2d 282 , 290- 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (state administrative agency fact findings concerning restraints in mental health facility would be given preclusive ef | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Public Service Commission v. Wilson
green
2 sentences2012Wilson, 389 Md. at 37 , 882 A.2d at 855 . 2012Wilson, 389 Md. at 37 , 882 A.2d at 855 . | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Belinda Ritter v. Cecil County Office of Housing and Community Development
green
1 sentence2011See generally Hunter v. Underwood, 362 F.3d 468 (8th Cir.2004); Ritter v. Cecil County Office of Hous. & Cmty. Dev., 33 F.3d 323 (4th Cir.1994). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Sugarloaf Citizens Ass'n v. Northeast Maryland Waste Disposal Authority
green
2 sentences2011The question decided in Sugarloaf was whether the Maryland Air Management Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment was required to hold a contested case hearing before ruling on an application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 11 related to the process of building a Municipal solid waste incinerator. 323 Md. at 651 , 594 A.2d at 1119-20 . 2011The question decided in Sugarloaf was whether the Maryland Air Management Administration of the Maryland Department of the Environment was required to hold a contested case hearing before ruling on an application for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit 11 related to the process of building a Municipal solid waste incinerator. 323 Md. at 651 , 594 A.2d at 1119-20 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Bell v. Burson
green
2 sentences2007In Bell v. Burson, supra, [ 402 U.S. 535, 539-540 , 91 S.Ct. 1586 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) ] the entitlement to a driver’s license under state law was deemed “property” for due process purposes. 2007In Bell v. Burson, supra, [ 402 U.S. 535, 539-540 , 91 S.Ct. 1586 , 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971) ] the entitlement to a driver’s license under state law was deemed “property” for due process purposes. | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
green
2 sentences1997Id. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. at 1495 ; see also Gilbert, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1811 . 1997Id. at 546 , 105 S.Ct. at 1495 ; see also Gilbert, — U.S. at -, 117 S.Ct. at 1811 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
cluster 444430
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
cluster 490096
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Vincent R. Duffy v. Brian J. Sarault, Etc.
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
City of Burbank v. Cinevision Corp.
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Greenfield v. Wood
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Arkansas-Best Freight System, Inc. v. Barrentine
green
1 sentence1997Even that procedural right to a hearing, however, has been held inapplicable to legislatively mandated reorganizations or reductions in force not based on individual fault or “cause.” See Duffy v. Sarault, 892 F.2d 139 (1st Cir.1989); Smith v. Sorensen, 748 F.2d 427 (8th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1054 , 105 S.Ct. 2116 , 85 L.Ed.2d 480 (1985); American Federation of Government Employees v. OPM, 821 F.2d 761 (D.C.Cir.1987); Praprotnik v. City of St. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
De Bleecker v. Montgomery County
green
1 sentence1982It further concluded that "De Bleecker was not entitled to a pre-termination hearing, and the Board’s action in terminating De Bleecker’s employment did not violate any of his constitutional rights.” 48 Md. | 1 | 1982–1982 |
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.