elaborate hearing (Indiana) · Go Syfert
← Indiana issues

elaborate hearing in Indiana

6 Indiana opinions name it 2 courts 1996–2013 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Indiana 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Reilly v. Dalygreen
indctapp · 1996 · cited in 3 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2001–2013
2 sentences

2013We also stated in Reilly that courts have refused to require the traditional formalities of legal proceedings in school 15 suspension and dismissal hearings and that due process requires “not an elaborate hearing before a neutral party, but simply an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian which gives the student an opportunity to explain his version of the facts.” Reilly, 666 N.E.2d at 444 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

2013We also stated in Reilly that courts have refused to require the traditional formalities of legal proceedings in school suspension and dismissal hearings and that due process requires “not an elaborate hearing before a neutral party, but simply an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian which gives the student an opportunity to explain his version of the facts.” Reilly, 666 N.E.2d at 444 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

33
Kolender v. Lawsongreen
scotus · 1983 · cited in 1 Indiana opinions naming this issue, 2003–2003
2 sentences

2003Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903, 909 (1983).

2003Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352, 357 , 103 S.Ct. 1855, 1858 , 75 L.Ed.2d 903, 909 (1983).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

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

Also cited on this issue (3)

CaseCitedYears
Lake Central School Corp. v. Scartozzi green
indctapp · 2001
1 sentence

2011Id. (citations omitted).

12011–2011
Raymond J. Gorman, III v. University of Rhode Island green
ca1 · 1988
1 sentence

1996Due process thus requires not an elaborate hearing before a neutral party, but simply ‘“an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian’ which gives the student ‘an opportunity to explain his version of the facts.’” Gorman, 837 F.2d at 16 citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 693 , 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1423 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (White, J., dissenting).

11996–1996
Ingraham v. Wright green
scotus · 1977
2 sentences

1996Due process thus requires not an elaborate hearing before a neutral party, but simply ‘“an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian’ which gives the student ‘an opportunity to explain his version of the facts.’” Gorman, 837 F.2d at 16 citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 693 , 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1423 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (White, J., dissenting).

1996Due process thus requires not an elaborate hearing before a neutral party, but simply ‘“an informal give-and-take between student and disciplinarian’ which gives the student ‘an opportunity to explain his version of the facts.’” Gorman, 837 F.2d at 16 citing Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 693 , 97 S.Ct. 1401, 1423 , 51 L.Ed.2d 711 (1977) (White, J., dissenting).

11996–1996

Where else courts name it

CA 18 (1915–2020) IN 6 (1996–2013) TX 5 (1992–2012) WV 3 (1983–2004) GA 3 (1945–1975) MA 3 (1953–2010) FL 2 (1983–2006) ME 2 (1879–1918) NJ 2 (1998–2008) VA 2 (1901–1999) MD 2 (1942–2012)

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