Legal Opinion
Dehart v. City of Manhattan, Kan.
District Court, D. Kansas
Decided October 7, 1996No. 95-4154-RDRPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
ROGERS, District Judge.
This is an action brought by the plaintiff pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff contends that his substantive and procedural due process rights were violated when he was terminated from his position as plant operator of the City of Manhattan’s (City) waste water treatment plant. He also asserts a state law breach of contract claim. This matter is presently before the court upon defendant’s motion for summary judgment. 1
I
The claims asserted by the plaintiff in this case revolve solely around whether plaintiff had an implied contract with the City.…
2Cases cited36 opinions
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- 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
31 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ney v. City of Hoisington, Kan.District Court, D. Kansas · 2007
- Randolph v. BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES, KANSAS CITYDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 1997
- Warren v. City of Junction City, Kan.District Court, D. Kansas · 2001
- Crowley v. CITY OF BURLINGAME, KANSASDistrict Court, D. Kansas · 2005
- Ted Buckley v. Keebler CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 1998