Edwards v. City of Goldsboro
- Decided
- May 14, 1999
- Docket
- No. 97-2609
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 2,842 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that failure to comply with Rule 28(a)(9) “triggers abandonment of that claim on appeal” — Anthony Dash v. Floyd Mayweather, Jr. (2013)
- holding that First Amendment rights of an off-duty officer communicating about concealed weapons were sufficiently established by precedent regarding off-duty officer’s entertainment performances — Kenneth Hunter v. Town of Mocksville, North Caro (2015)
- concluding that claim not properly raised in appellant's opening brief is deemed abandoned — United States v. Brooks (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge HAMILTON wrote the opinion, in which Judge ERVIN and Chief Judge HILTON joined.
OPINION HAMILTON, Circuit Judge:
Kenneth Edwards, a sergeant in the police department for the City of Goldsboro, North Carolina, brought this civil action against the City of Goldsboro (the City), its chief of police, Chester Hill (Chief Hill), and its city manager, Richard Slozak (City Manager Slozak), alleging numerous claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (§ 1983) and the North Carolina Constitution, and one claim under North Carolina common law. In his civil action, Kenneth Edwards (Sergeant Edwards) challenged the decision to suspend him for two weeks without pay and. to place him on probationary status for one year following his teaching of a concealed handgun safety course when he had previously been denied permission to do so. He also .challenged the decision to condition his continued employment with the police department upon his not teaching the course. The district court dismissed all of Sergeant Edwards’ claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Sergeant Edwards appeals, and we now affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (1999)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.