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.
7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1977–2007 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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
City of Flagstaff v. SUPERIOR COURT, ETC.green2 sentences1979Bishop and Kunes, supra. In determining whether a pretermination hearing is required, we have held that the interest of the employer can sometimes outweigh the requirement for a pretermination hearing provided a prompt and meaningful post-termination hearing is available: “In balancing the interest of the City of Flagstaff (and the public) in maintaining a loyal and efficient fire department with the interest of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing, we believe the need of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing is outweighed by the interest of the City of Flagstaff in the continued 1979Bishop and Kunes, supra. In determining whether a pretermination hearing is required, we have held that the interest of the employer can sometimes outweigh the requirement for a pretermination hearing provided a prompt and meaningful post-termination hearing is available: “In balancing the interest of the City of Flagstaff (and the public) in maintaining a loyal and efficient fire department with the interest of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing, we believe the need of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing is outweighed by the interest of the City of Flagstaff in the continued | 1 | 4 |
Goldberg v. Kellygreen2 sentences1978The 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 | 2 |
Phil Jacobs v. Ken Kunes and County of Maricopagreen2 sentences1979Bishop and Kunes, supra. In determining whether a pretermination hearing is required, we have held that the interest of the employer can sometimes outweigh the requirement for a pretermination hearing provided a prompt and meaningful post-termination hearing is available: “In balancing the interest of the City of Flagstaff (and the public) in maintaining a loyal and efficient fire department with the interest of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing, we believe the need of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing is outweighed by the interest of the City of Flagstaff in the continued 1979Bishop and Kunes, supra. In determining whether a pretermination hearing is required, we have held that the interest of the employer can sometimes outweigh the requirement for a pretermination hearing provided a prompt and meaningful post-termination hearing is available: "In balancing the interest of the City of Flagstaff (and the public) in maintaining a loyal and efficient fire department with the interest of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing, we believe the need of the petitioner to a pre-termination hearing is outweighed by the interest of the City of Flagstaff in the continued | 1 | 2 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Erle E. Peacock, Jr. v. Board of Regents of the Universities and State Colleges of Arizona
green
2 sentences1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that “a proper post-suspension hearing was avai 1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that “a proper post-suspension hearing was avai | 3 | 1977–1979 |
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
green
2 sentences2007Because the purpose of a pre-termination hearing is not to conclusively establish the propriety of dismissal but to serve as “an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action^” id. at 545-46 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , the hearing “need not be elaborate” as long as notice and an opportunity to be heard are provided. 2007Because the purpose of a pre-termination hearing is not to conclusively establish the propriety of dismissal but to serve as “an initial check against mistaken decisions — essentially, a determination of whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that charges against the employee are true and support the proposed action^” id. at 545-46 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , the hearing “need not be elaborate” as long as notice and an opportunity to be heard are provided. | 2 | 1988–2007 |
Edwards Underground Water District v. Hills
green
2 sentences1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that “a proper post-suspension hearing was avai 1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that “a proper post-suspension hearing was avai | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Peacock v. Board of Regents of Universities & State Colleges
green
2 sentences1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that “a proper post-suspension hearing was avai 1979In the instant case, Roberts was not in a public safety type position as was the employee fireman in City of Flagstaff, supra, nor involved in public health as was the case in Peacock v. Board of Regents, 510 F.2d 1324 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied 422 U.S. 1049 , 95 S.Ct. 2668 , 45 L.Ed.2d 701 (1975) where the court held that the potential threat to the administration of the University of Arizona College of Medicine by the suspended head of the Department of Surgery outweighed the requirement of a hearing prior to suspension provided, of course, that "a proper post-suspension hearing was avail | 1 | 1979–1979 |
Kelly v. Wyman
green
1 sentence1978The 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 |
Richard Kennedy v. Harold T. Robb, M.D., and Patrick J. Gannon, M.D.
green
1 sentence1977In 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 |
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.