King v. Mississippi Military Department

245 So. 3d 404 (2018)

From our private database of 47,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

King v. Mississippi Military Department

Mississippi Supreme Court
245 So. 3d 404 (2018)

Deanna Curl headshot
  • Written by Deanna Curl, JD

Facts

In February 2016, the adjutant general terminated Cindy King’s (plaintiff) employment with the Mississippi Military Department (the department) (defendant). King’s termination letter indicated that the termination was based on a finding that King violated Mississippi Code by using an employment position for personal gain. King appealed the termination decision to the Mississippi Employee Appeals Board (the board). The department argued that the board did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because King was an at-will employee subject to termination at the adjutant general’s discretion. The board ultimately found that King was an at-will employee and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. King appealed the board’s decision, and the trial court upheld the decision. King subsequently appealed the trial court’s decision affirming the board’s ruling.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Coleman, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 966,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,500 briefs, keyed to 1,007 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
  • AI-generated podcast version of every brief — listen on the go, between classes, or whenever reading isn’t an option. New

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 966,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 47,500 briefs - keyed to 1,007 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Comparative Constitutional Law

Key Terms

  • Separation of PowersThe doctrine, based on the constitutional division of power among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government, that prevents any one branch from exercising an excessive amount of power. Through checks and balances, each branch of government has some ability to restrain the other two.
  • De Novo ReviewAllows the appellate court to review an issue of law or a mixed issue of law and fact without giving deference to the lower court's decision. In other words, under de novo review, the appellate court reviews the issue as if it were deciding the issue for the first time.
  • Deference One authority’s determination to apply another authority’s decision or practice, based on the first authority’s recognition of that decision or practice as entitled to respect. In the administrative-law context, deference refers to judicial acceptance of an agency's interpretation of the agency's rules, policies, and authority. In federal habeas law, deference or AEDPA deference refers to the scope of review that a federal court may apply to a state court’s adjudication of a defendant’s federal constitutional claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Understand your casebook readings in seconds

Use our case briefs to comprehend your casebook readings faster, supplement your notes and outlines, and outshine your peers in class.

Get instant access to over 47,500+ expert-written case briefs in a searchable database keyed to 1,007 law school casebooks.

Case book preview
Start your free 7-day trial