Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 598 - Todaro v. Norat

Todaro v. Norat’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 598 · 1997

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
August 2011
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2011

1 federal appellate ·

60199720002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Relationships

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Citibank Na v. K-H Corporation · O'Neill v. City of Auburn · Citibank, N.A. v. K-H Corp.

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 12 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “This circuit looks to New York Civil Service Law and the statutes which create a particular position or the authority to appoint or remove an individual to or from the position to determine whether a New York public employee has a property interest in his position requiring that he be afforded a hearing before termination.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “The district court's decision that a post-termination hearing under Article 78 was constitutionally adequate directly conflicts with the holding of Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, ... which requires a government entity to give its tenured employee notice and an opportunity to respond before he is terminated from a public position. Due process does not require a full, judicial-type hearing before employment is terminated, but certain features must be present to fulfill the minimum requirements of fairness: the employee must be given oral or written notice of the charges against him, an explanation of the employer's evidence, and the opportunity to present his side of the story. A post-termination proceeding such as that provided under Article 78 does not meet the Loudermill requirements because it takes place after the employee has lost his job.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.