Case Citator › Goldberg v. Kelly

Goldberg v. Kelly

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Limited by some courts
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
397 U.S. 254
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
98 of 98
Citing cases (total)
5,924
Treatment dates
1974–2007
Limited by some courts
At least one reviewed court has limited this case’s holding to narrower facts or a narrower rule. No reviewed court has overruled it. Goldberg v. Kelly is limited: all 98 flagged citations have been read, with the 2 confirmed limitations listed below. Boykins v. Fairfield Board of Education declined to extend Goldberg's confrontation and cross-examination safeguards from welfare-termination hearings to public-school discipline, a holding later recognized by Nash v. Auburn University.
More on how this was screened

In re Detention of Stout likewise declined to extend Goldberg's confrontation rule to sexually violent predator commitment proceedings after applying the later Mathews v. Eldridge framework. CourtListener lists that Washington Supreme Court opinion twice, so the limitation is listed once. The other reviewed opinions applied Goldberg, cited it only as background, rejected arguments aimed at other rules, or placed nearby adverse language in history parentheticals for other authorities.

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

5,924 later cases cite Goldberg v. Kelly; 98 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Goldberg v. Kelly?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Limited

  • The Fifth Circuit declined to extend Goldberg's confrontation and cross-examination safeguards from welfare-termination hearings to public-school disciplinary proceedings.

    Boykins v. Fairfield Board of Education · Fifth Circuit · filed

    They contend, however, that we should read the Supreme Court’s Goldberg4 and Morrissey5 decisions as expanding the requirements of Dixon to add to them universal confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, especially where severe punishments are meted out on disputed facts. We decline to do so. ... But whether or no, we reject the attempted analogy of student discipline to parole revocation or the termination of welfare benefits. Cf. Student Discipline, 45 F.R.D. 133, at 142. The situations treated are Simply too disparate to permit an uncritical transfer of specific due process requirements from one to the other.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Washington Supreme Court declined to extend Goldberg's due-process confrontation right from welfare-termination hearings to sexually violent predator commitment proceedings.

    In re Detention of Stout · Supreme Court of Washington · filed

    ¶ 21 These cases are distinguishable from that of Stout. None engages in a Mathews balancing test, which is the appropriate test to use in determining what process is due in a given context, particularly where civil commitments are concerned.[13]Young, 122 Wash.2d at 44, 857 P.2d 989 (citing In re LaBelle, 107 Wash.2d 196, 221, 728 P.2d 138 (1986)). More importantly, in none of the cases cited by Stout did minimum due process require that the government bear the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. By that fact alone, Stout received significantly more process than any of the individuals in the cases cited by him. Not only does the absence of the Mathews test render the preceding cases legally distinct from Stout's case, they are also factually dissimilar.[14] Accordingly, we hold that an SVP detainee does not have a due process right to confront a live witness at a commitment trial, nor does *96 he have a due process right to be present at a deposition.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Goldberg v. Kelly and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace