-
857 F.2d 1095·
6th Cir.·
1988-09-23
The court held that the plaintiff's three-day suspension and reprimands did not violate his constitutional rights to due process, equal protection, or the right to petition the government.
-
841 F.2d 857·
8th Cir.·
1988-03-14
The court held that placing a formal letter of reprimand in an officer's personnel file, without an opportunity to refute it, does not deprive the officer of a constitutionally protected property interest if there is no loss in pay or rank.
-
705 F.2d 358·
9th Cir.·
1983-05-04
Abstention was proper because the determination of whether plaintiffs had a protected property interest, requiring due process, must be decided under state law.
-
649 F.2d 748·
9th Cir.·
1981-06-29
The court held that an employee who obtains a position through deliberate material misrepresentation of qualifications has no constitutionally protected property interest in that employment, and thus cannot claim a violation of procedural due process rights upon termination.
-
640 F.2d 1309·
Ct. Cl.·
1981-01-28
The court held that the plaintiff's removal from his overseas position was procedurally sound and supported by substantial evidence, affirming the Civil Service Commission's decision.
-
532 F.2d 1015·
5th Cir.·
1976-06-07
The court held that the reference of the case to a magistrate as a special master was improper over the appellant's objection, entitling him to a trial de novo.
-
540 F.2d 670·
4th Cir.·
1976-03-31
The court held that the Wolff v. McDonnell procedural due process standards do not apply retroactively to prison transfers or reclassifications that occurred before June 26, 1974. However, cases involving transfers after that date may require Wolff-type hearings if they constitut
-
529 F.2d 1132·
2d Cir.·
1976-02-03
The court held that the case was moot because there was no reasonable expectation that the alleged wrong would be repeated, and vacated the lower court's judgment.
-
430 F.2d 861·
5th Cir.·
1970-07-07