Katherine Barlow, Etc. v. Atlanta Housing Authority

Fifth Circuit

Katherine Barlow, Etc. v. Atlanta Housing Authority

592 F.2d 280, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15784

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedMarch 30, 1979

Docket77-1779

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 592 F.2d 280 (Katherine Barlow, Etc. v. Atlanta Housing Authority) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Katherine Barlow, Etc. v. Atlanta Housing Authority, 592 F.2d 280, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15784 (5th Cir. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

For the reasons set forth in District Judge Murphy’s opinion in Harrison v. Housing Authority of the City of College Park, N.D.Ga., 1978, 445 F.Supp. 356, aff’d, 5 Cir., 1979, 592 F.2d 281, we hold that appellant Katherine Barlow did not, under Georgia law, have a property interest in her continued employment with the Atlanta Housing Authority. See Bishop v. Wood, 1976, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684. In view of this, in affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants we need not reach the issue of whether due process was afforded appellant Barlow. On the basis of Chief Judge Henderson’s opinion in the instant case below, we also affirm the denial of class certification under F.R.Civ.P. 23.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

For the reasons set forth in District Judge Murphy’s opinion in Harrison v. Housing Authority of the City of College Park, N.D.Ga., 1978, 445 F.Supp. 356, aff’d, 5 Cir., 1979, 592 F.2d 281, we hold that appellant Katherine Barlow did not, under Georgia law, have a property interest in her continued employment with the Atlanta Housing Authority. See Bishop v. Wood, 1976, 426 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 2074, 48 L.Ed.2d 684. In view of this, in affirming the summary judgment entered in favor of the defendants we need not reach the issue of whether due process was afforded appellant Barlow. On the basis of Chief Judge Henderson’s opinion in the instant case below, we also affirm the denial of class certification under F.R.Civ.P. 23.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

592 F.2d 280, 1979 U.S. App. LEXIS 15784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katherine-barlow-etc-v-atlanta-housing-authority-ca5-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack