Stephan L. Honore v. James M. Douglas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a professor could not demonstrate a procedural due process violation where the Board of Regents had ultimate decision-making authority and rejected a hearing committee’s recommenda- tion to grant the professor tenure
• observing that summary judgment is \an inadequate procedure for sorting out nebulous questions of motivation\ in a First Amendment retaliation case
• “[A] federal court is generally not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies.”
• “[Djespite this finding of procedural adequacy, we do not agree with the trial court’s rejection of the substantive due process claim.”
• “[A] federal court is generally not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies.”
• “We find no merit in Honore’s claim of a denial of procedural due process.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).