Legal Opinion · Dissent
City of North Pole v. Zabek
Alaska Supreme Court
Decided February 21, 1997No. S-6777, S-6907, S-6927Published
1Dissent
SHORTELL, Justice pro tern.,
with whom RABINOWITZ, Justice, joins, dissenting in part.
Because I believe the majority opinion erroneously holds that Zabek’s February 22, 1992 hearing served to “cure” the City’s violation of her due process rights, I dissent from the court’s decision to deny Zabek a remedy beyond the date of that determination.
I also believe the majority’s facile treatment of Zabek’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim is mistaken. Zabek should be allowed to press her due process and statutory claims to their legitimate conclusions. The majority opinion erroneously and prematurely cuts off…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Owen v. City of IndependenceSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- George E. Vanelli, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Reynolds School District No. 7, Defendants-Appellees/cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1982
- Robert Barnett, Cross-Appellant v. The Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Mrs. Dorothy L. Kelly, Cross-AppelleesCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 1983
- Mark Eilrich v. Bernard J. RemasCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.