Skip to main content

Termination: D C v. Indiana Department of Child Services

Ind. Ct. App.April 17, 2024No. 23A-JT-00848

Case Details

Status
Published

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Insufficient case information provided to determine outcome. This appears to be a termination case against the Indiana Department of Child Services.

Similar Rulings

Termination: A L v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 2025
Unresolvable
Termination: J W v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 2025
Unresolvable
Termination: K W v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Nov 2025
Unresolvable
Termination: I B v. Indiana Department of Child Services
Ind. Ct. App.Dec 2023
Dismissed
Kodi Gail Knight v. The City of Fairview, Williamson County, Tennessee
Tenn. Ct. App.Oct 2021

This appeal concerns a police officer's termination. Kodi Gail Knight ("Knight") was a police officer for the City of Fairview, Tennessee ("Fairview"). After an August 2019 incident in which Knight struck a handcuffed woman ("the Arrestee") in the face, Fairview police chief Zack Humphreys ("Chief Humphreys") submitted a request to City Manager Scott Collins ("the City Manager") that Knight be terminated. The City Manager sent Knight a termination letter. Knight requested, and was granted, a pre-dismissal hearing before the City Manager. Following this hearing, the City Manager affirmed the decision to terminate Knight. Knight filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Williamson County ("the Trial Court"). The Trial Court affirmed Fairview's termination of Knight. Knight appeals, arguing among other things that his procedural due process rights were violated because the City Manager both drafted his termination letter and presided over his pre-dismissal hearing. We find that Knight was an at-will employee who lacked a property interest entitling him to procedural due process protection. We also find that the City Manager's decision was supported by substantial and material evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. We affirm the judgment of the Trial Court.

Defendant Win

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.