Law Commons^™

03-11-1977 Memorandum To The Conference, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Two cases have been held for Codd v. Velger, No. 75-812, decided February 22, 1977. Both cases present issues not resolved by our decision in Codd.

02-22-1977 Justice Blackmun, Concurring, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.

02-22-1977 Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Respondent Velger's action shifted its focus, in a way not uncommon to lawsuits, from the time of the filing of his complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which we review here. His original compliant alleged that he had been wrongly dismissed without a hearing or a statement of reasons from his position as as a patrolman with the New York City Police Department, and under 42 U.S.C. 1983, sought reinstatement and damages for the resulting injury to his reputation and …

01-19-1977 Correspondence From Powell To Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

I will be glad to join your Per Curiam opinion if you make changes along the lines indicated in your letter of January 18 to Thurgood.

02-16-1977 Correspondence From Burger To Rehnquist, Warren E. Burger

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

This will confirm my join to make five for the first alternative.

02-16-1977 Memorandum To The Conference, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Of those who have joined the current circulation, Potter has expressed a strong preference for the second alternative treatment of the "property interest" question now discussed in footnote 2, and Byron, Harry, Lewis, and I have expressed a preference for the first alternative. The Chief has expressed a preference for the first alternative, but has not ye joined the opinion. John has expressed a preference for the second alternative, but has circulated a dissenting opinion.

02-15-1977 Correspondence From White To Rehnquist, Byron R. White

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

In tardy response to your memorandum of February 3, I would be content with footnote two in the fourth draft.

02-10-1977 Correspondence From Burger To Rehnquist, Warren E. Burger

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

I prefer you "Option I", but would join an "Option II".

02-09-1977 Correspondence From Brennan To Rehnquist, William J. Brennan

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

I had originally intended to dissent but defected and joined your Per Curiam. That, however, was before John circulated his subversive dissent. You can therefore credit (or blame) him for my defection back to my original decision, reflected in the enclosed.

02-08-1977 Correspondence From Powell To Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

This refers to your memorandum of February 3, in which you propose three alternatives.

My first choice is your first alternative; I could join you on the second; but I would part company with you on the third.

01-07-1977 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

One of Justice Brennan's clerks came to speak to me about the case this afternoon. He claimed the decision had the following peculiarities:

02-07-1977 Correspondence From Blackmun To Rehnquist, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

This is in response to your memorandum of February 3. My preference, like yours, is the first alternative. I could, however, go along with the second. I would not go along with the third.

02-04-1977 Correspondence From Stevens To Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

Because I really did not intend to indicate an answer to the question raised in Part III of my separate opinion, but merely to suggest that the issue should not be ignored, I agree with Potter that it would be appropriate to follow the second alternative suggested in your recent memorandum. If that course is followed, I would, of course, withdraw Part III of my opinion.

02-04-1977 Memorandum To The Conference, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

I propose to change footnote 1 of the current draft so as to read as follows:

02-03-1977 Memorandum To The Conference, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Part III of John's dissent in this case takes the position that since the Court of Appeals did not pass on the issue of whether respondent had a "property interest" in his employment, the judgement of the District Court should not be ordered reinstated but instead the case simply reversed and the Court of Appeals left free to consider that matter if it chooses to do so upon remand. Bill Brennan has sent around a note indicating his sympathy with John's point of view. It seems to me there are three alternative ways to deal with the question, two of …

02-03-1977 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill,

I strongly prefer the second alternative suggested in your memorandum of today. Adoption of this alternative would, of course, require a modification of the final sentence of the opinion.

02-3-1977 Correspondence From Marshall To Rehnquist, Thurgood Marshall

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

I am about to land somewhere between Brennan and Stevens. Will let you know soon.

02-02-1977 Correspondence From Brennan To Rehnquist, William J. Brennan

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

John's dissent suggests more problems with this case than I had fully appreciated and I am going to do some more thinking about it. As a minimum I think his Part III is well taken. I had not discerned that the Court of Appeals had not passed on the property interest claim. I think John's disposition could be incorporated in your Per Curiam and do it no damage.

02-01-1977 Justice Stevens, Dissenting, John Paul Stevens

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, dissenting.

01-26-1977 Justice Blackmun, Concurring, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

I join the Court's per curiam, but I emphasize that in this case there is no suggestion that the information in the file, if true, was not information of a kind that appropriately
might be disclosed to prospective employers. We therefore are not presented with any question as to the limits, if any, on the disclosure of prejudicial, but irrelevant.
accurate information.

01-25-1977 Justice Brennan, Concurring, William J. Brennan

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, concurring.

I join the Court's opinion but add these words for emphasis.

01-21-1977 Clerk Memo, Unknown

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Justice Brennan's clerk called to say that they might include the substance of your proposed footnote in their concurrence. They find themselves in somewhat of a hard place because apparently Justice Stewart had indicated to them that he might well join the concurrence. And as the circulation indicates, Stewart is opposed to the footnote. In any event, the concurrence from Brennan is to be expected early next week.

01-21-1977 Correspondence From Powell To Rehnquist, Lewis F. Powell

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

In view of the changes in your second draft, I am happy to join you Per Curiam.

01-27-1977 Correspondence From Blackmun To Rehnquist, Harry A. Blackmun

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Would it be at all possible to persuade you to add the following as a footnote dropped at the end of the paragraph ending on the top of page 4:

01-21-1977 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, Potter Stewart

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

I would rather prefer that Harry's suggested footnote not be added to this opinion. If it were a full dress, signed opinion, then, in the interest of thoroughness, the thought expressed in the footnote might well be added, possibly along with the discussion of other related thoughts.

01-18-1977 Correspondence From Stewart To Rehnquist, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill,

I have been troubled by the same concerns that bothered Thurgood. If. however, you can reserve those puzzling questions along the lines indicated in your letter to Thurgood of today, I shall be glad to join your opinion.

01-18-1977 Correspondence From Rehnquist To Marshall, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

The problem which you raise with respect to the subject of the draft opinion in this case is a real one, but I am unsure of whether we should deal with it here. As you point out, respondent here sought only damages and reinstatement, and therefore we are not directly presented with the question which would be raised if he had in addition sought a delayed Roth hearing by the employer. The precise disposition of his case, had he sought only that sort of a hearing and neither damages nor reinstatement, is to my mind a cloudy and difficult question; …

10-14-1977 Correspondence From Marshall To Rehnquist, Thurgood Marshall

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Your opinion for the Court faithfully reflects the conclusions of the Conference majority, of which I was a part. Seeing it in writing, however, has suggested some problems with which we did not deal.

01-07-1977 Correspondence From White To Rehnquist, Byron R. White

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Dear Bill:

Please join me.

01-06-1977 Justice Rehnquist, Per Curiam, William H. Rehnquist

Codd v. Velger, 429 U.S. 624 (1977)

Respondent Velger's action shifted its focus in a way not uncommon to lawsuits, from the time of the filing of his complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which we review here. His original compliant alleged that he had been wrongly dismissed without a hearing or a statement of reasons from his position as as a patrolman with the New York City Police Department, and under 42 U.S.C. 1983, sought reinstatement and damages for the resulting injury to his reputation and …