SCHMIDT

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Womer v. Hampton, 496 F.2d 99 (5th Cir. 1974)
  …notice should contain a statement of the specific charges and ground which, if proven, would justify expulsion under the regulations of the Board of Education.” Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 5 Cir. 1961, 294 F. 2d 150, cert. den. 1961, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193. Notice is required by statute for many administrative proceedings.4 An individual accused of a crime must be given reasonable notice of the specific charges against him.5 More generally, in a civil case, the Supreme Cou…
• Donald v. Hatch and Viola Hatch, 502 F.2d 1189 (10th Cir. 1974)
  …ey are expelled or suspended for a lengthy or indefinite period, absent some extraordi [*1195] nary situation requiring immediate action before a hearing. See, e. g., Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2d 150 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193; Brown v. Strickler, 422 F. 2d 1000 (6th Cir.); Farrell v. Joel, 437 F. 2d 160 (2d Cir.); Betts v. Board of Education of City of Chicago, 466 F. 2d 629 (7th Cir.); Strickland v. Inlow, 485 F. 2d 186 (8th Cir.), cert. gra…
• Mitchell v. Bd. OF Trs. OF Oxford Mun. Separate Sch. Dist., 625 F.2d 660 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …ee stated, such cases can arise. When they do, however, they are unconstitutional because there is not a rational relationship between the punishment and the offense, Dixon v. Alabama State Board of Education, 294 F. 2d 150 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930, 82 S.Ct. 368, 7 L.Ed.2d 193 (1961), not because the punishment is mandatory.…