Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that state official’s ultra vires action in disseminating damaging information about the plaintiff that prevented him from obtaining employment constituted effective revocation of plaintiffs certification to work as a peace officer
• holding that § 1983 plaintiff must allege and prove each defendant’s liability for the constitutional deprivation
• holding that a state official’s action in disseminating damaging information about the plaintiff that prevented him from obtaining employment constituted effective revocation of plaintiff’s certification to work as a peace officer
• holding that a validly enacted law places citizens on notice that violations thereof do not fall into the realm of privacy and criminal activity is thus not protected by the right to privacy
• holding that a validly enacted law places citizens on notice that violations thereof do not fall into the realm of privacy and criminal activity is thus not protected by the right to privacy
• noting that the “right to enjoy employment opportunities in [a] chosen field” has repeatedly been upheld as a liberty interest

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).