State v. Garbacz

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that plaintiff need not prove the falsity of the statements but must at least “raise the falsity of these stigmatizing statements as an issue”
• holding that a due process violation occurred because the plaintiff was only allowed to rebut stigmatizing statements to some of the community leaders who originally heard the statements
• stating that government’s interest is that “of an executive officer to make and explain important personnel decisions”
• stating that government's interest is that \of an executive officer to make and explain important personnel decisions\
• noting that the “state interest at issue in a stigma-plus claim has been defined as the interest of an executive officer to make and explain important personnel decisions.”
• stating that a name-clearing hearing “gives the plaintiff an opportunity to hear and answer first-hand any stigmatizing charges, clearing his name of any false statements made about him, and curing the injury to his reputation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).