Calvin v. Rupp’s Empirical Analysis
471 F.2d 1346 · 1973
Citation profile
22
cited by 22 later decisions
3
states following
June 1988
most recently cited
13 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Perry v. Sindermann · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Sokol v. Hill
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The only injury plaintiff alleges here, however, is that his record of nonretention will make him less desirable to other potential employers. Even if we assume that plaintiff could have satisfied his burden of proof on this contention in the district court, this fact alone does not establish a right to some form of pre-termination hearing. As Mr. Justice Stewart said in Roth , ‘Mere proof, . . . that [a] record of non-retention in one job, taken alone, might make [an individual] somewhat less attractive to some other employers would hardly establish the kind of foreclosure of opportunities amounting to a deprivation of ‘liberty’. 408 U.S. at 574, n. 13 , 92 S.Ct. at 2708 n. 13. The property interest which plaintiff claims makes the procedural requirements of the due process clause applicable is his expectancy of reemployment. The expectancy claimed by plaintiff, however, is clearly not a matter of either actual or de facto tenure rights. There was no teacher tenure law in effect in Missouri in April 1969. Nor was there any informal or de facto system of contractual tenure as was involved in Perry v. Sinderman, [ 408 U.S. 593 , 92 S.Ct. 2717 , 33 L.Ed.2d 581 ] supra. See 408 U.S. at 599-602, 92 S.Ct. 2717 . Plaintiff’s employment was clearly on a year-by-year basis.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““The only injury plaintiff alleges here, however, is that his record of non-retention will make him less desirable to other potential employers. Even if we assume that plaintiff could have satisfied his burden of proof on this contention in the district court, this fact alone does not establish a right to some form of pretermination hearing.” 471 F.2d at 1348 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.