5 Iowa opinions name it 2 courts 1989–2018 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Iowa 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 |
|---|---|---|
Bennett v. City of Redfieldgreen2 sentences2018Aside from our conclusion, above, that Riverdale was not statutorily required to publish notice of the hearing, we note "[t]he central elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend." Silva v. Emp't Appeal Bd. , 547 N.W.2d 232 , 234-35 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) ; accord Bennett v. City of Redfield , 446 N.W.2d 467 , 471 (Iowa 1989) (stating "if the claimant has been afforded notice and opportunity to be heard in a name clearing hearing, no liberty interest claim arises" and "[d]ue process requires only that the claimant be accorded notice of the charges and opportunity to present a 1994“The due process requirement is satisfied where the employee is notified of the reasons for discharge and furnished the opportunity of a name clearing hearing.” Bennett, 446 N.W.2d at 471 . | 2 | 3 |
Rush v. Perrymangreen1 sentence2013In Rush v. Perryman, the Eighth Circuit held that a college president had a due process right to a name clearing hearing after he was terminated amidst accusations of “dishonesty, insubordination, failure to comply with state laws, and willful disregard of board policy.” 579 F.3d 908, 910, 913 (8th Cir.2009). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Bp Amoco Oil Plcgreen1 sentence2013Jones contends Mason violated the Due Process Clause by denying him the benefit of a name-clearing hearing.) “Due process is a flexible concept that varies with the particular situation, and its fundamental requirement ... is the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” United States v. BP Amoco Oil PLC, 277 F.3d 1012, 1017 (8th Cir.2002) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen2 sentences2013Procedural due3 process claims center on the “requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 909 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 41 (1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). 2013Procedural due3 process claims center on the “requirement that a person in jeopardy of serious loss [be given] notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.” Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 348-49 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 909 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18, 41 (1976) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Latrelle Campbell v. Pierce County, Georgia, by and Through the Board of Commissioners of Pierce County, Troy Mattox, Foy Kimbrell, and Larry Thomasgreen2 sentences1989The City cited the case of Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342 (11th Cir.1984), as authority. 1989See Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392, 396 (5th Cir.1989); Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342, 1345-46 (11th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
Thomas E. Nelson v. The City of McGehee Rosalie S. Gould Jim D. Harrisgreen2 sentences1989As stated in Nelson v. City of McGehee, 876 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir.1989), “[i]t is the denial of due process, not the alleged defamation per se, which triggers a federal cause of action.” The due process requirement is satisfied where the employee is notified of the reasons for discharge and furnished the opportunity of a name clearing hearing. 1989As stated in Nelson v. City of McGehee, 876 F.2d 56, 58 (8th Cir.1989), “[i]t is the denial of due process, not the alleged defamation per se, which triggers a federal cause of action.” The due process requirement is satisfied where the employee is notified of the reasons for discharge and furnished the opportunity of a name clearing hearing. | 1 | 1 |
Howard M. Rosenstein v. The City of Dallas, Texasgreen1 sentence1989See Rosenstein v. City of Dallas, 876 F.2d 392, 396 (5th Cir.1989); Campbell v. Pierce County, 741 F.2d 1342, 1345-46 (11th Cir.1984). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Iowa. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Silva v. Employment Appeal Board
green
1 sentence2018Aside from our conclusion, above, that Riverdale was not statutorily required to publish notice of the hearing, we note "[t]he central elements of due process are notice and an opportunity to defend." Silva v. Emp't Appeal Bd. , 547 N.W.2d 232 , 234-35 (Iowa Ct. App. 1996) ; accord Bennett v. City of Redfield , 446 N.W.2d 467 , 471 (Iowa 1989) (stating "if the claimant has been afforded notice and opportunity to be heard in a name clearing hearing, no liberty interest claim arises" and "[d]ue process requires only that the claimant be accorded notice of the charges and opportunity to present a | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
green
2 sentences1989Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 , 92 S.Ct. at 2707 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 558-59 . 1989Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 , 92 S.Ct. at 2707 , 33 L.Ed.2d at 558-59 . | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.
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.