Template:Did you know nominations/Arnett v. Kennedy
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Arnett v. Kennedy
- ... that in Arnett v. Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist said public employees must accept "the bitter with the sweet" in their due process rights when contesting dismissal? Source: "where the grant of a substantive right is inextricably intertwined with the limitations on the procedures which are to be employed in determining that right, a litigant in the position of appellee must take the bitter with the sweet.", Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 153–54 (1974)
- ALT1: ... that in Arnett v. Kennedy, Justice Thurgood Marshall called colleague Lewis Powell's suggestion that a public employee appealing his dismissal could go on welfare "grossly insensitive"? Source: Arnett, at 169: "Alternatively, he will be eligible for welfare benefits." At 221: "To argue that a dismissal from tenured Government employment is not a serious enough deprivation to require a prior hearing because the discharged employee may draw on the welfare system in the interim, is to exhibit a gross insensitivity to the plight of these employees."
- ALT2: ... that in his Arnett v. Kennedy dissent, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas cited The Peter Principle? Source: Arnett, at 205: "Their dominant characteristic is the application of Peter's Inversion. See L. Peter & R. Hull, The Peter Principle 24-26 (Bantam ed. 1970)."
- ALT3: ... that one federal judge complained that the five separate opinions in the U.S. Supreme Court's Arnett v. Kennedy "obfuscated what had been until that time a relatively settled area of the law"? Source: Young v. Hutchins], 383 F. Supp. 1167, 1174 (1974)
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamad al-Hajji
- Comment: Did this as an outgrowth of my recent DYK submission with Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co. One of those "I didn't plan on doing this" ones.
5x expanded by Daniel Case (talk). Self-nominated at 03:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC).
