impede plaintiffs opportunity to argue that the Board’s charges were groundless and to support his contentions by calling his own witnesses and presenting his own evidence.”). In contrast, the Tenth Circuit held that a non-tenured teacher who was fired amid rumors of immorality was entitled to cross-examine her accusers at her name-clearing hearing. McGhee v. Draper, 564 F.2d 902, 911 (10th Cir.1977) (“[W]e agree that in the circumstances of this case due process required that the accusers of plaintiff, who were attacking her morality and fitness as a teacher, be heard only where plaintiff could confront and cross-examine them.”). The Eleventh Circuit has also approved of a district court’s, decision to allow cross-examination at a name-clearing hearing. Campbell, 741 F.2d at 1346 (<HOLDING>). A survey of various circuits indicates that
holding that defendants due process interests at sentencing were protected where district court allowed parties an opportunity to develop evidence and submit memoranda and held an evidentiary hearing where both sides had the opportunity to present witnesses and argue holding that due process requirements were satisfied where the plaintiff had opportunity to hear and crossexamine all adverse witnesses and to attempt to rebut their claims of insubordination and mishandling of funds holding defendants georgia residents satisfied all the requirements of due process and were subject to personal jurisdiction in north carolina holding that a nameclearing hearing for a terminated city attorney satisfied due process even though he was not allowed to crossexamine witnesses because he had ample opportunity to refute the charges against him holding that the right to crossexamine adverse witnesses applies to capital sentencing hearings