Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

There is no absolute right of confrontation in civil cases. See Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 402, 407, 28 L. Ed. 2d 842, 91 S. Ct. 1420 (1971). In particular cases, live testimony and cross-examination might be so important as to be required by due process, although the principal case so holding-- Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 268, 25 L. Ed. 2d 287, 90 S. Ct. 1011 (1970)--may not have much life left after Mathews v. Eldridge, supra, 424 U.S. at 334-35; cf. Cholewin v. City of Evanston, 899 F.2d 687, 689-90 (7th Cir. 1990).

Goldberg granted a right of confrontation to persons denied welfare benefits; Mathews withdrew it for persons denied disability benefits. The basis for distinction was the hardship to persons taken off welfare, and of course it has no counterpart here. Moreover, the ordinance empowers the hearing officer to subpoena witnesses. That provides an adequate safety valve for those cases, if any (there may be none), in which fair consideration of the respondent's defense would require, as a constitutional imperative, the recognition of a right of confrontation. 

Register or login to access full content