Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
County of Dallas v. Wiland
Texas Supreme Court
Decided February 16, 2007No. 04-0247Published
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
Justice BRISTER,
joined by Chief Justice JEFFERSON, Justice O’NEILL, and Justice MEDINA, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Even governments should be careful what they ask for. After a Dallas district court held that Dallas County deputy constables were at-will employees, Dallas legislators obtained passage of a state law and Dallas County officials adopted a new code extending civil-service protection to them. But when three deputies were discharged in 2001, the County insisted they were still at-will employees, despite all its efforts to the contrary.
Dallas County should be held to…
2Cases cited29 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Perry v. SindermannSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Carey v. PiphusSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Bishop v. WoodSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
24 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.