RAYMON J. MELTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT,
v.
CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LLOYD A. GRAMLING, CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, GERALD L. EMMETT, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE FOR THE CITY OF OKLAHOMA CITY, MARVIN MAXWELL, MAJOR, OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, WILLIAM R. CHAMBLESS, MAJOR, OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, CARL SMITH, LIEUTENANT, OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, ROBERT TAYLOR, LIEUTENANT, OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, DAVID MCBRIDE, LIEUTENANT, OKLAHOMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND PAULA HEARN, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS/CROSS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court denied petitions for rehearing but granted rehearing en banc on specific issues concerning jury instructions and the right to a name-clearing hearing.
This case involves petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc following a panel decision. The en banc court will consider specific issues related t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Name-Clearing Hearing cases and more on FLexlaw
Before HOLLOWAY, Chief Judge, McKAY, LOGAN, SEYMOUR, MOORE, ANDERSON, TACHA, BALDOCK, BRORBY and EBEL, Circuit Judges, and SAFFELS, District Judge *. PER CURIAM.
Before the court are defendants’-appellants’ petitions for rehearing with suggestion for rehearing en banc. Upon a vote of the panel members, see 879 F. 2d 706, the petitions for rehearing are denied. A majority of the court’s active judges, however, agree to rehear these cases en banc limited to the following issues:
1. Whether the district court committed plain error in instructing the jury that a liberty interest may be violated by charges which “would stigmatize the employee’s reputation or foreclose future employment opportunities”?
2. Whether the district court committed plain error in failing to instruct the jury that before a liberty interest may be infringed, the charges must be found to be false?
3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a name-clearing hearing complete with the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses before the disciplinary review board, assuming dissemination of the perjury charges deprived plaintiff of a liberty interest?
4. Further assuming plaintiff is entitled to some sort of a hearing, need it be pre-termination, or would some post-termination hearing or name-clearing opportunity be adequate?
The clerk of court is hereby directed to enter the appropriate briefing and oral argument schedule.
SO ORDERED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Melo v. Hafer, 912 F.2d 628 (3d Cir. 1990)
-
Raymon J. Melton v. City OF Okla. City, 928 F.2d 920 (10th Cir. 1991)
-
Melva A. Schalk v. Gallemore, 906 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1990)
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Raymon J. Melton v. City OF Okla. City, 879 F.2d 706 (10th Cir. 1989)