Legal Opinion

Coleman v. DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL ADMININISTRATION

California Supreme Court

Decided February 25, 1991No. S004129PublishedCited by 88 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

KENNARD, J.

The abstract words of the due process clause of the United States Constitution have engendered many controversies; but it is beyond dispute that the government may not deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property without notice and opportunity to respond, in a manner “appropriate to the nature of the case.” (Mullane v. Central Hanover Tr. Co. (1950) 339 U.S. 306, 313 [94 L.Ed. 865, 872-873, 70 S.Ct. 652].)

The due process issue we address here is what procedural safeguards, if any, the state must afford a permanent civil service employee when it exercises its statutory…

2Cases cited44 opinions

  1. Mathews v. EldridgeSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  2. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  3. Morrissey v. BrewerSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  4. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1950
  5. Cleveland Board of Education v. LoudermillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985

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

3Cited by88 opinions

  1. City of Stockton v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Lundquist v. ReusserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994
  3. Warden v. State Bar of CaliforniaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  4. California Teachers Assn. v. StateCalifornia Supreme Court · 1999
  5. People v. HeitzmanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1994

83 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