DeClue v. City of Clayton

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the employer did not violate the Impairment Clause by adopting new personnel policies because “[when] the contract terms themselves provide for subsequent amendment, modification, or termination, no ‘vested’ right under the contract is created”
• “Under Georgia law ... a public employee has a property interest in his job if his employment allows dismissal only for cause.”
• “Where the contract terms themselves provide for subsequent amendment, modification, or termination, no ‘vested’ right under the contract is created.”
• “A constitutional act of the legislature has been found to be the equivalent of a contract, and the rights created thereby cannot be impaired by subsequent legislation.”
• Because the employee did not have a property interest in his employment, the city did not violate his due process rights by terminating his employment without notice and a hearing.
• “The trial court has broad discretion in regulating its business and in scheduling trials”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).