# Codd v. Velger

> Supreme Court of the United States · February 22, 1977 · 429 U.S. 624

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426669

## Case

- **Full name:** CODD, POLICE COMMISSIONER, CITY OF NEW YORK, Et Al. v. VELGER
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** February 22, 1977
- **Citations:** 429 U.S. 624; 1 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 81; 97 S. Ct. 882; 51 L. Ed. 2d 92; 1977 U.S. LEXIS 44
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Stewart
- **Judges:** Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall, Stevens, Stewart
- **Cited by:** 840 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426669

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that even if the plaintiff police officer would ordinarily have been entitled to a pre-termination hearing under the Due Process Clause, he was not entitled to such a hearing where he did not dispute the truth of the charges against him, because the purpose of a hearin…
- holding that former police officer failed to affirmatively assert “that the report of the apparent suicide attempt was substantially false” and, as a result, failed to satisfy the final necessary element needed to make out a claim of stigmatization
- holding that plaintiff was not entitled to a hearing with respect to derogatory statements about him because "[n]owhere in his pleadings or elsewhere has [he] affirmatively asserted that the [statements in issue were] substantially false"
- holding that a name-clearing hearing, ordinarily required for an employee stigmatized by discharge, is not required where the employee "does not challenge the substantial truth of the material in question"
- stating that unless plaintiff alleges charges against him are false, name-clearing hearing would fail to serve its purpose of clearing plaintiffs name of false charges made against him

## Opinion text

Mr. Justice Stewart,
dissenting.
Although sharing generally the views expressed in the Court’s opinion, I agree with Part III of Mr. Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, and I would for that reason remand this case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9426669. Public record. Not legal advice.