post-termination hearing (Ohio) · Go Syfert
← Ohio issues

post-termination hearing in Ohio

7 Ohio opinions name it 1 courts 1988–2006 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Ohio 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 (1)

CaseFollowedCited
Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermillgreen
scotus · 1985 · cited in 5 Ohio opinions naming this issue, 1992–2006
2 sentences

2001Loudermill did not determine that the only due process required to be afforded to an employee is the “pretermination opportunity to respond.” To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court stated that its decision was based in part upon “the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing.” Id. at 543 , 105 S.Ct. at 1495 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 504 .

2001Loudermill did not determine that the only due process required to be afforded to an employee is the “pretermination opportunity to respond.” To the contrary, the United States Supreme Court stated that its decision was based in part upon “the provisions in Ohio law for a full post-termination hearing.” Id. at 543 , 105 S.Ct. at 1495 , 84 L.Ed.2d at 504 .

35

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Ohio. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Nolan v. Nolan green
ohio · 1984
1 sentence

2005Insofar as we affirmed the decision of the trial court above, that holding became the law of the case. {¶ 18} The Supreme Court of Ohio has summarized the doctrine of the law of the case, stating that "the decision of a reviewing court in a case remains the law of that case on the legal questions involved for all subsequent proceedings in the case at both the trial and reviewing levels." Nolan v. Nolan (1984), 11 Ohio St.3d 1 , 3-4 .

12005–2005
Ohio Ass'n of Public School Employees v. Lakewood City School District Board of Education green
ohio · 1994
1 sentence

2001Bd. of Edn. (1994), 68 Ohio St.3d 175 , 624 N.E.2d 1043 (recognizing that a more thorough post-termination hearing is required to satisfy the procedural due process requirements of a terminated public employee, but stating that there are no express procedural due process mandates in a post-termination hearing).

12001–2001
Theodore R. Brouillette, Jr. v. Board of Directors of Merged Area Ix, Alias Eastern Iowa Community College green
ca8 · 1975
1 sentence

1988Dr. Korn cites Brouillette v. Bd. of Directors of Merged Area IX, Alias Eastern Iowa Community College (C.A.8, 1975), 519 F.2d 126 , which holds that the minimal requirements of due process afforded to a terminated teacher are: clear and actual notice of the reasons for the termination in sufficient detail to present evidence relating to them, notice of the names of those who made allegations against the teacher and the specific nature and basis for the charges, a reasonable time and opportunity to present testimony, and a hearing before an impartial board or tribunal.

11988–1988

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