TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Emmett Dean Robinson v. The City of Montgomery City

Emmett Dean ROBINSON, Appellant, v. the CITY OF MONTGOMERY CITY, Et Al., Appellees

Robinson v. The City of Montgomery City, 809 F.2d 1355 (8th Cir. 1987)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 27, 1987
Docket
No. 86-1532
Judges
Lay, Heaney, Arnold
Citations
809 F.2d 13551987 U.S. App. LEXIS 1340

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Emmett Dean Robinson, former Police Chief of the City of Montgomery City, Mis *1356 souri, brought this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the City claiming that his dismissal as Police Chief has deprived him of liberty and property without due process of law. The District Court 1

, 651 F.Supp. 493 (1986), dismissed the complaint, and Robinson appeals.

We affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the District Court’s opinion. Robinson claims that an ordinance of the City gave him a property interest in his appointed position as Police Chief, and it is possible that this claim might have merit, but for the fact that, as the District Court held, the ordinance is invalid under State law. Mo.Ann.Stat. § 79.240 provides that appointed officials in cities of the fourth class are employees at will, and the Missouri state courts, as the District Court’s opinion explains, have held that this statute overrides and invalidates ordinances such as the one upon which plaintiff here bases his claim. Property interests are not created by the Constitution itself. They must find their basis in some independent source, such as state law, and here state law negatives the theory upon which plaintiff attempts to proceed.

We also agree with the District Court’s holding that no liberty interest was involved here. Plaintiff claims that when he was discharged a press release was issued by the City stating that the dismissal was based upon the City’s dissatisfaction with plaintiff’s performance. This kind of statement is not sufficiently stigmatizing to give plaintiff a liberty-interest right to a name-clearing hearing. No imputation of dishonesty, moral turpitude, or the like is involved.

Because the opinion of the District Court appears to us to discuss adequately all the issues involved, we forego a fuller statement. See 8th Cir.R. 14. The judgment is Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Missouri.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 15 cases

View all citing references →
1988: 21991: 11992: 21993: 21994: 11996: 21997: 11999: 12000: 12001: 12003: 119882026peak 1988 · 2

Most recent

  1. Vukelic v. Bartz245 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D.N.D. 2003)
  2. Klingner v. City of Braham130 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (D. Minnesota 2001)
  3. Mercer v. City of Cedar Rapids104 F. Supp. 2d 1130 (N.D. Iowa 2000)
  4. Deemer v. Durell110 F. Supp. 2d 1177 (S.D. Iowa 1999)
  5. Brekke v. City of Blackduck984 F. Supp. 1209 (D. Minnesota 1997)
  6. Mitchell v. Lealman Volunteer Fire Co.985 F. Supp. 1436 (M.D. Fla. 1996)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Robinson v. City of Montgomery, 651 F. Supp. 493 (E.D. Mo. 1986) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list