noting that “when there is conflicting oral testimony going to the heart of the question to be decided, so that an evaluation of the witnesses’ demeanor may be critical to deciding the question correctly, an appellate tribunal ... will have a hard time making responsible findings of fact”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “when there is conflicting oral testimony going to the heart of the question to be decided, so that an evaluation of the witnesses’ demeanor may be critical to deciding the question correctly, an appellate tribunal ... will have a hard time making responsible findings of fact”
- principles of federalism require that Fourteenth Amendment due process clause not be interpreted to place more stringent procedural constraints on state agencies than the same language in the Fifth Amendment places on federal agencies
- refusing to invalidate a residency requirement merely because it might have the incidental and unintended effect of inducing family members to live apart
- "The Constitution does not require states enforce their laws (or cities their ordinances
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WEIGEL, Senior District Judge,
concurs in the result.