Legal Opinion

Vinyard v. King

Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

Decided July 23, 1981No. 80-1109PublishedCited by 16 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

O’CONNOR, District Judge.

Plaintiff brought this action pursuant to 42 Ú.S.C. § 1983 alleging that her due process rights were violated when her employment at Clinton Regional Hospital was terminated by defendants. Defendants include the hospital administrator and the members of the hospital board of directors. Upon motion by defendants, the district court abstained in accordance with the Pullman Doctrine stating that Oklahoma law was unclear with respect to the existence of plaintiff’s claimed property interest in continued employment with the hospital.1 The court below invoked the Pullman…

2Cases cited33 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1941
  5. Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976

28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Vinyard v. KingCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1984
  2. Carnes v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991
  3. Al Friedman v. Board Of County Commissioners Of Bernalillo CountyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1985
  4. Lehman v. City of LouisvilleCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1992
  5. Carnes v. ParkerCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1991

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API