Dixon v. Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the appellants did not have a full and fair opportunity to respond to the assertions made with respect to certain claims when the parties did not brief or present oral argument on them, and thus, reversing the trial court’s grant of summary judgment as to those claims
• Rhetoric is not a substitute for legal analysis, which requires “a discussion of the appropriate law as applied to the relevant facts.”
• “The right to continued employment may arise where there is a guarantee of employment for a fixed term, or where the employment allows termination only for cause”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).