Appeal of Alexander

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the expansive language in the last sentence of RSA 21-I:58, I, “was intended to be confined to cases arising under that section — that is, appeals by permanent employees”
• stating that issue raised for first time in motion for rehearing not preserved for appellate review
• declining to vacate board decision issued after 3 statutory deadline for decision had expired, when employee failed to show prejudice
• observing that public employment alone does not rise to the level of a protected property right and concluding that appellant had not shown he had a protected property interest in continued public employment because he failed to cite a provision of the CBA creating such an interest
• “SYSC is a secure facility that provides detention, treatment and rehabilitation services for serious, chronic and/or violent juvenile offenders.” (parentheses omitted)
• “[W]e have repeatedly reaffirmed that, as a matter of State law, public employment without more, such as a commission of office, does not rise to the level of a protected property right” for due process purposes.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).